Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council determined a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was assessed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application. In particular, he says the delegated officer report misrepresents the scale and design of the proposed extensions when comparing them to other neighbouring properties, and the report also fails to properly address the impact of the proposal on the levels of light in his dining room.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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. (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 the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• 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. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong, and we cannot revoke a planning permission. 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
7. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify starting and investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the objections to the proposal are summarised in the delegated report, including concerns about its size/scale/appearance and loss of light.
• the case officer has visited the site, and the delegated report lists/considers the planning permissions granted to nearby properties for similar extensions. The officer therefore clearly understood the character, size and appearance of developments approved elsewhere when comparing them to what was being proposed.
• applications are assessed on their own merits, taking into account the relevant planning policies and material considerations which prevail at the time.
• the report specifically considers the impact on Mr X’s dining room. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision on the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman