The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered two planning applications. Nor will we investigate the Council’s consideration of the reports of breaches of planning control. There is no evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Miss B, says the Council refuses to take enforcement action against her neighbour’s extension. She says the extension does not match the approved plans.
Miss B says the extension is disproportionately large, blocks light to her kitchen and blocks her view. She states her property has lost value.
She wants: the extension removed and rebuilt according to the plans to ensure site visits take place and plans are checked for accuracy before granting planning permission an apology; and compensation if the extension cannot be changed.
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss B’s neighbour applied for permission to build a single storey with a flat roof, a loft extension, and changes to the front parking area. There are rooflights and rear doors in the extension. The plans show the extension level with the house.
The Planning Officer report shows Miss B’s objections were considered, but the Council considered the application overcame these. The Council has no statutory duty to visit an application site.
The neighbour put in a new application for a further extension build to allow for a drain which had been discovered. The Council publicised the application and again Miss B objected.
The Planning Officer’s report notes the proposal is not disproportionate to the existing house, representing an increase of 30% of the whole property.
The Officer specifically considered Miss B’s objections but found the extension is only half a metre higher than that which can be achieved under permitted development extension is to the north of Miss B’s home, therefore it will not result in shading; and there are no windows in either of the side elevations.
The Council granted planning permission for the amended proposal.
Following Miss B’s complaint, the Council confirms an Officer visited the site. The plans were remeasured and are in approximate agreement with the dimensions stated in the Officer’s report on the extension.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because we have seen no evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the way the Council considered her neighbours planning application. Nor have we seen any evidence of fault in the way it considered her reports of breaches of planning control.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman