Summary
Ms X complains about the grant of planning permission for an extension to her neighbour’s property. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Ms X complains about the grant of planning permission for an extension to her neighbour’s property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
My assessment
Ms X’s neighbour to the rear of her house submitted a planning application in December 2020 for a double storey side extension and single storey rear extension and loft conversion. Ms X objected to the planning application but the Council granted planning permission in February 2021.
The Planning Officer report noted that the distance between the rear of the property and Ms X’s house was 20m. The Planning Officer concluded that, given the separation distance and the nature of the proposed alterations to the roof, there would be no significant overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing caused by the extension to warrant refusal of the planning application.
Ms X says the Planning Officer should have seen the effect of the extension from her property. The Council says that this was not necessary as this could seen from the scaled plans.
I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the impact of the extension upon Ms X’s amenity when the planning application was determined. There was no legal obligation to visit Ms X in order to consider the impact.
Ms X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.
Final decision
I do not intend to investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman