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 granted planning permission for a rear neighbour’s extension based upon incorrect measurements.

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 rear neighbour submitted a planning application for an extension in 2023. Mr X objected and pointed out that the measurements used in the Planning Officer report were incorrect.
6. The Council says that the Planning Officer’s report was amended to reflect these errors prior to the decision to grant planning permission.
7. The Planning Officer’s report specifically refers to Mr X’s property and the effect upon his amenity. The Planning Officer concluded that the distance and angle of the extension would not harm Mr X’s amenity sufficiently to warrant refusal of the of the planning application. The Planning Officer had also visited the site prior to their report.
8. Not all development needs planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
9. Specifically the Planning Officer noted that the extension was not significantly greater than that which would be permitted under permitted development rights. Further there was a reduction in ground level which meant that the effect upon amenity was lessened.
10. A subsequent amended planning application was made for alterations to the extension. The Planning Officer report again refers to the effect upon Mr X’s amenity and concluded that there was insufficient effect to warrant refusal.
11. Whilst the Council accepts that the initial measurements in the first planning application were incorrect I note that these were amended prior to the grant of planning permission. As such I am satisfied that the planning permission was granted without fault.
12. 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.
13. In the absence of fault, we will not investigate this complaint further.
14. Mr X also complains about issues relating to this complaint, such as their responses to his enquires. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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