Report of Local Government Ombudsman on complaint of injustice

Introduction

In October 2003 planning permission was granted under delegated powers for a two storey extension to the rear of a house.

Two neighbours considered that the extension would have an adverse impact upon their amenities. The neighbours took their complaints through the Council's Complaints System and they have now been considered by the Local Government Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's decision is that one of the complainants suffered injustice as a result of maladministration by this Council.

Section 30(3) of the Local Government Act 1974 requires the Ombudsman to report his findings without naming or identifying the complainant or other individuals.

Publication and Consideration of the Decision

The Ombudsman has produced a press release and this Council is required to publish the decision in a public notice. The Council has also issued a press release. A report on the Ombudsman's decision will also have to be considered by the Council.

The Decision

The Ombudsman considered that the case officer's delegated report failed to set out all of the relevant planning considerations and how objections had been considered. Specifically, the neighbour's detailed objections about the likely impact from proposed first floor windows were not fully addressed in the case officer's report. Consequently, this matter could not be properly considered and evaluated by the senior officer who made the delegated decision.

The Ombudsman determined that this was maladministration causing injustice to the neighbour. He has recommended the following remedy which the Council has accepted:

• negotiate with neighbour (who built extension) to obscure glaze windows and restrict their opening
• if negotiations are unsuccessful obtain a valuation of complainant's property, comparing the extension as it is now with the extension as built, but with remedial measures (obscure glazing and restricted opening) that would have prevented any significant overlooking and pay the complainant the difference between the valuations if any; and
• pay the complainant £250 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint

Conclusion

The Council's press release accepts that an error was made and apologises for the stress and inconvenience this matter has caused the affected parties. Mistakes of this kind are extremely rare but we will learn from this case. We will tighten up our procedures to ensure that all information relevant to the determination of a planning application is available to the senior officers who exercise delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of the Council.