Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council gave planning permission for a neighbouring two storey extension which could affect the light in his home. There is no Council fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council granted planning permission for a neighbouring two storey extension. He says the development will adversely affect his amenity, particularly the light in his home. Mr X says the Council did not give much notice of the application and he had difficulty in obtaining information about it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s comments and information. I have viewed the Council’s website information on this planning application and photographs of the street scene. The information held includes the officer’s delegated report approving the application.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he received notification of the application dated 21 December 2018 on the 28th day of the month. He viewed the site plan at the office and objected. The consultation period ended on the 14 January 2019.
5. Mr X’s main objections, and those of other neighbours are about the overdevelopment of the existing house, overshadowing/potential loss of light, loss of privacy, and the impact on street parking.
6. The officer report considers the impact of the proposal on the property in which Mr X which consists of flats. It says the proximity of about 7.4 metres is acceptable. It considered the position of windows and did not consider there would be a significant loss of light. The Council applied a condition to ensure first floor windows are obscure glazed and do not open which would prevent potential loss of privacy or overlooking. The officer report considered the density of the development, the number who could occupy the accommodation and parking. It considered the impact on the area and applied a condition regarding appearance and design materials. The Council granted planning approval in 2019.

Analysis

7. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
8. There is no indication of significant fault in the Council’s notification of the application. There is no injustice to Mr X because he had time to view the proposal and object.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to grant planning approval. The Council considered the impact of the proposal on Mr X’s amenity, including the proximity of the development, overlooking and light.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council gave planning permission for a neighbouring extension which could affect the light in his home. There is no Council fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman