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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council wrongly granted planning permission for a neighbour’s extension which affects his amenity.

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. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a retrospective planning application for a single storey extension to which Mr X objected with a report containing photographs to show the effect upon his amenity (loss of light etc).
6. The Planning Officer’s report clearly refers to Mr X’s objections. The report notes that the previous conservatory was slightly smaller ant the new extension would not cause a sense of enclosure to Mr X’s property because the bulk and scale of the extension angles away from the property.
7. Mr X argues that notification as not carried out properly but as Mr X was able to make his objections, I see no injustice from this argument. Mr X also argued that he had a right of light but this is a private right and has no effect upon planning law.
8. I am satisfied that the Planning Officer had before them all the relevant information and evidence (including photographs) in which to make a decision. Mr X’s objections were considered and there is a statement in the report referring to the effect upon his amenity.
9. 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.
10. Mr X’s dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council’s decision, but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot question this. Mr X argues that the planning permission is ultra vires but only a court can determine this question.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman