The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. It is unlikely we would find fault.
The complaint
Ms X says the Council should not have granted planning permission for a domestic extension.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X which includes the Council’s replies to her, and the planning application documents available on line.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council granted planning permission in early 2025 for a two storey side extension. The plans show the site boundaries and that the extension would encroach slightly on neighbouring land.
Ms X objected to the application. Included in her reasons was the encroachment on the neighbouring land and her belief the site plans showed inaccurate boundaries. Ms X complained following the grant of planning permission. She says the Council failed to reply properly to her complaint.
In reply to her complaint, the Council said the land ownership was not relevant to the planning decision and the potential need for a change of use permission for a small part of the land had been referred to its enforcement team for further investigation.
Analysis Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise. Material planning considerations do not include private rights and interests in land. This means who owns the land on which the planning permission is sort is not a relevant planning consideration.
Planning applicants must complete an ownership certificate as part of their application. This is to ensure the landowners are aware of the application. Here the applicant declared that they were not the sole owner of the whole site and included details of who they believed owned part of the site. Ms X believes the Council should have declared the application invalid because of the ownership issues. But as the application include the applicant was not the sole owner and the detail of the believed owner we are unlikely to find fault in the Council not declaring the application invalid.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the Council’s decision.
I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to grant planning permission. It is unlikely we would find fault in how it took the decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault which caused the Council to grant the planning permission.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman