Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. The Council accepts fault but we could not say this affected the decision. The Council has apologised and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council failed to consider the impact of her neighbour’s extension on light to her kitchen window. She says this will overshadow her kitchen.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Ms X’s complaint, the Council’s responses, the planning application documents and the planning officer’s reports. I shared my draft decision with Ms X and considered her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for an extension in 2019. The Council refused the initial application, partly on the basis of the impact on Ms X’s property, but granted planning permission for a revised proposal, the impact of which it considered acceptable.
5. Ms X says the Council misplaced her objection and failed to consider the impact of the revised proposal on her kitchen window. The Council admitted fault on these points and apologised. It reviewed the case but explained the decision was correct. Ms X complains the decision is not consistent with the Council’s previous refusals and that it should not have granted planning permission. She would like the Council to revoke the planning permission or pay to reconfigure the downstairs of her property to provide more light.
6. We cannot say the Council must revoke the planning permission and we must look at the impact of the fault in deciding what remedy is appropriate. The Council has apologised to Ms X and in the circumstances this provides a suitable remedy for her injustice. This is because we cannot say the application should have been refused.
7. In response to Ms X’s complaint the Council has set out the reasons it considers the development acceptable and these are rational and supported by the plans; we cannot therefore question them. The existing situation means that light to Ms X’s kitchen window is already “extremely limited” and the Council considers any further impact from the extension is not so harmful that it would warrant refusal. There are significant differences in the size and scale of the development refused and that approved by the Council and this justifies reaching different decisions on these applications.
8. Ms X also complains about the Council’s handling of another planning application but this application was refused so the issue causes her no injustice. We will not therefore investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s apology provides a suitable remedy for the injustice Ms X suffered as a result of its error.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman