Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a site next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence to conclude that any fault has affected the planning outcome, so the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for extensions to a neighbouring property. In particular, he says:
• inaccurate, existing separation distances were referred to in the case officer’s report.
• an inaccurate measurement for the proposed side extension was referred to in the officer report, and it remains unclear how deep the extension is intended to be when compared to the depth of the existing dwelling.
• the Council did not include an ‘hours-of-working’ condition on the planning permission, despite it being recommended by a consultee.
• the application should have been determined by the Planning Committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. If there is evidence of procedural fault, we consider whether it affected the decision i.e. whether it caused the complainant an injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and clarification on the depth of the proposed side extension.
• the Council’s Constitution.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so we cannot overrule decisions on planning applications. Rather, our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made, and to consider whether any fault is likely to have affected the planning outcome.
7. I find there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any fault has affected the outcome of the planning application. Mr X has therefore not been caused a significant injustice by any errors in the handling of the application, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the case officer visited the application site and took photographs, so would have been aware of the existing proximity of Mr X’s home to the application site, and a separation distance of approximately 3.75m will remain once the development is completed.
• there is no requirement for adjoining sites to be visited during the determination of a planning application.
• Mr X’s objections to the proposal are summarised in the case officer’s report, and the report goes on to consider the impact on his residential amenity, albeit that the Council accepts the reasoning/assessment could have been explained in greater detail.
• athough the Council again concludes the officer’s report should have provided a more detailed explanation, the officer has clearly considered whether it was appropriate to impose an ‘hours-of-construction’ condition. Mr X may well disagree with the conclusion reached, but it was made by an officer exercising their professional judgement.
• the Council’s complaint response acknowledged the depth of the proposed side extension will actually be smaller than the figure referred to in the officer’s report. And in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council has confirmed that whilst the greatest depth of the existing dwelling is around 7.8‑7.9m, the proposed side extension is intended to be smaller, with a depth of approximately 6.9m.
• the Council’s complaint response confirms the application was considered by the Delegation Panel, in accordance with the scheme of delegation.
8. In the future, if Mr X thinks the works are not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans, then it is open to him to report this to the Council’s planning enforcement team.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest that any fault in the Council’s handling of the application is likely to have affected the planning outcome, so he has not been caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman