Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably granted planning permission for a neighbour’s extension which overlooks his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the @complainant @and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning permission was granted in July 2022 for a double storey side extension to Mr X’s neighbour.
6. A new non material amendment planning application was submitted in September 2023 as (in part) the neighbour wished to install windows.
7. Mr X objected to the new planning application and the Planning Officer report noted this and commented that the new windows would not cause a loss of amenity to Mr X. Further, a Planning Officer Enforcement Officer visited and noted that the windows installed as part of the previous planning permission had been installed in accordance with that planning permission ie obscure glazed and non-opening.
8. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the effect upon Mr X’s amenity from the planning application.
9. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
10. 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 an organisation 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
11. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to grant planning permission for the proposed amendments. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman