Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed in acting on his concerns about a bat roost on his property when considering a planning application for development on a nearby site. He also complained the Council did not have adequate regard to the impact the development would have on light to his property. In particular that light to the living room window would be significantly reduced. There was no fault by the Council in its consideration of the planning application.

The complaint

1. I call the complainant Mr B. He complained the Council delayed in acting on his concerns about a bat roost on his property when considering a planning application for development on a nearby site. He also complained the Council did not have adequate regard to the impact the development would have on light to his property. In particular that light to the living room window would be significantly reduced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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:

• 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.

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

4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the relevant events

6. Mr B lives in a house in a small village. There is a field access which separates the development site from Mr B’s house. The application was for a row of houses. The end one would be across the access from Mr B’s house.
7. When Mr B was notified of the planning application he told the Council about the bat roost in his property. There were changes to the original application and Mr B submitted further comments again referring to the bat roost. As he was not satisfied the Council was acting on the point he contacted Natural England who contacted the Council. The Council imposed conditions on the planning permission to protect the roost.
8. Mr B raised concerns about the impact the development would have on his home. The new house will be 10m from main windows in his property. The case officer spoke to Mr B and also visited his house before writing his report on the application recommending approval. The application was approved under delegated powers.
9. Mr B complained to the Council both about the consideration of the bat roost and the impact on light to his property. He was dissatisfied with the response he received so complained to us.

Analysis

Bats

10. In responding to Mr B’s complaint the Council accepted the case officer could have responded sooner to Mr B’s concerns about the bat roost. It said he had a high workload at the time but he would always have ensured the roost was protected by appropriate conditions.
11. I understand Mr B was concerned when no action had been taken and followed this up himself. But there is nothing more I can achieve here. The Council imposed conditions so the outcome was not affected. Any delay by the Council in responding to Mr B’s points is not so significant in itself and did not cause such significant injustice that I should pursue this point further.

Impact on Mr B’s property

12. The crux of Mr B’s complaint in terms of the impact of the development on his home was the loss of light. The development is to the south and the gable wall of the development directly faces main windows in his property. There is a separation distance of 10m between Mr B’s property and the site.
13. The Council does not have a policy that sets out specific separation distances between buildings and windows: its policy requires development proposals to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. This is not fault; there is no requirement for the Council to have a specific policy on separation distances.
14. The plans first submitted proposed a two-storey rear projection to the house on the plot near to Mr B. The case officer considered that was not acceptable and asked the developer to resubmit plans with the projection removed.
15. The case officer also agreed with the developer that the hedge between Mr B’s house and the site should be maintained at a height of not less than 1.8 metres to protect Mr B’s privacy. In referring to the impact on Mr B’s house the report on the application referred to it being 1m lower than the development. It went on that there would be an impact in terms of loss of view but as there was no ‘right to a view’ and, given the changes that had been made to the scheme, it was considered acceptable. The report also said that given the separation distances involved the proposed dwelling was not deemed to be unduly overbearing on Mr B’s house. A condition was imposed that meant any future development proposals would require planning permission.
16. In responding to my enquiries about the complaint the Council said the windows in Mr B’s house that directly face the development are at first floor. It considered there was limited impact from the development on those windows and it was therefore acceptable. It did not refer to the window at ground floor which was of particular concern to Mr B. The window is a side window to the sitting room which has another window on the elevation at right angles. The side window faces the development. I asked the Council to comment specifically on this.
17. It said the window is underneath the car port canopy. It considered the car port would create its own restrictions on light and aspect to a significantly greater degree than would the gable to the new house. It also referred to the impact boundary treatment to the plot would have on the window regardless of the development.
18. The Council had to consider the planning application on the basis of the property as it is. The car port was a relevant factor to be considered. Also relevant was the fact that there was another window which served the room.
19. Mr and Mrs B have commented that the windowsill in that room is lower than usual so the car port has less of an impact on light to the window. And that if the car port was not there then the impact of the development on the window would be unacceptable.
20. Our role is to consider whether the Council properly considered the application. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
21. It is clear the officer understood the relationship between Mr B’s property and the site. He visited Mr B and required changes to the scheme to protect the amenity of Mr B’s property. The report shows he considered the impact on Mr B’s property. I recognise the report did not refer specifically to light to Mr B’s property but that is not fault as I consider it is demonstrated that the officer had considered whether the impact was acceptable in planning terms. There was not, therefore, fault in the assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman