The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application submitted by the complainant’s neighbour. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council: Did not notify her about her neighbour’s planning application.
Did not identify errors/inaccuracies in the plans submitted by her neighbour.
Has not adequately assessed or responded to her concerns and objections.
Has not explained which council officer made the decision to approve the application.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. But 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 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 Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and the delegated report on the application.
I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
My assessment
I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s extension. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, our role is to review the process by which a planning decision has been made, and to consider if any fault in that process is likely to have influenced the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.
In my view, there is not enough evidence to suggest that the alleged fault in how the Council determined the planning application is likely to have affected the outcome, so I do not consider Mrs X has suffered an injustice as a result of those alleged errors. The Ombudsman will therefore not investigate the complaint. In reaching my view, I am particularly mindful that: The Council says its records show a notification letter was sent to Mrs X’s property. There is no requirement for these letters to be sent by recorded delivery, and we cannot hold the Council responsible for any failure by Royal Mail to deliver them.
There is no requirement for neighbouring properties to be visited before a decision is taken on a planning application, and the Council would have been aware of the true proximity of surrounding buildings from a visit to the site for a previous application where photographs were taken.
The rear projection of the extension is in accordance with the Council’s ‘Supplementary Planning Document 4 - A Guide for Designing Housing Extensions and Alterations’, and a single-storey extension of 3m in depth could be erected under permitted development rights without the need for planning permission.
The delegated report considered the impact of the proposal on Mrs X’s residential amenity, and the officer’s recommendation was approved by a Planning Team Leader. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement that the extension would not have an unacceptable impact on Mrs X’s amenity, even if she disagrees with this conclusion.
Rights to Light are not a material planning consideration.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman