Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the impact on the complainant’s amenity when determining a planning application for extensions at a neighbouring property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has failed to properly consider issues of increased noise, overlooking, and loss of light and privacy when granting planning permission for his neighbour’s extensions.

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. We 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. In that regard, we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman, and the documents he submitted in support of the complaint (which included his complaint correspondence with the Council);
• Information about the planning application on the Council’s website;
• The Council’s ‘Householder Design Guide – Supplementary Planning Document’.
5. I also gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Background for determining planning applications

6. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the loss of a view, party wall issues or reduction in the value of a property.

Assessment

7. I appreciate Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s extensions. But the Ombudsman cannot question that decision unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way it was made. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant the Ombudsman investigating the complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Mr B’s objections are summarised in the case officer’s report, so appear to have been taken into account during the determination of the application;
• Whilst loss of daylight/sunlight is a material planning consideration, the ‘right to light’ is not;
• The case officer’s report goes on to consider ‘character and appearance’ and ‘impact on residential amenity’, including issues of overlooking, overshadowing, and dominance. Having considered these issues, the case officer was entitled to reach his own professional judgement on whether the impact of the proposal was acceptable;
• A condition requiring obscure glazing in the new, first-floor window closest to the boundary has been imposed, to avoid any potential overlooking due to its close proximity to Mr B’s garden;
• Government guidance (www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-planning-conditions) says that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum, and only used where they satisfy six particular ‘tests’. Planning conditions requiring compliance with other regulatory regimes (e.g. Building Regulations – in this case sound proofing) will not meet the test of necessity and may not be relevant to planning. Use of informatives may be appropriate, and one has been included on the decision notice for the neighbour’s development.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman