Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her neighbour’s planning application and how it reached its decision to grant permission. Mrs X said this led to loss of sunlight to her property and caused her distress. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with and made its decision to grant the planning permission.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her neighbour’s planning application for a two-storey rear extension. Mrs X’s complaint includes the Council’s failure to:

• conduct site visits
• consider Mrs X’s objections and the impact the extension would have on her property
• provide Mrs X information on how it reached its decision to grant her neighbour planning permission.

2. Mrs X said the Council’s failings led to loss of sunlight to her kitchen and bathroom. She also said the matter caused her stress, anxiety and it has affected her wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I also considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
6. I sent Mrs X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and received no comments to consider before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with a council’s development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. When considering planning applications, councils can only take account of material considerations. These relate to the use and development of land in the public interest. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking and loss of light or overshadowing. Councils cannot take account of private considerations such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property or loss of private rights to light.
9. Councils will notify local people when a planning application is received and give them an opportunity to comment. The volume or strength of local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission. However, councils must consider any material planning considerations raised in comments from local people and produce a report.
10. The report must set out key considerations such as the council’s policy, objections from neighbours and explain why and how the council has reached its conclusion. Case law states that these reports do not have to explicitly consider every factor in the decision.
11. When considering complaints about how a council has considered a planning application, we look for evidence that a proper process was followed before a decision was made. We expect to see evidence that the Council has identified the material planning considerations, such as impact on neighbours’ amenity raised by the application and that they have been properly considered. The weight the council gives to them is a matter for its judgement. We will not come to our own view on the merits of the planning application.

What happened

12. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
13. In 2020, Mrs X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a two-storey rear extension.
14. The Council confirmed the planning application and it put up a site planning notice for the proposed development.
15. Mrs X called the Council to discuss her neighbour’s proposed extension and the impact it would have on her property. Mrs X asked the Council to conduct a site visit. Mrs X said the Council informed her it was yet to consider the planning application and that it would conduct a 45-degree angle test from Mrs X’s neighbour’s property.
16. The Council received objections about the proposed development from some of the applicant’s neighbours. This included Mrs X’s objections. Mrs X raised concerns about the impact on her property. She said the extension would cast a shadow over her property and lead to loss of natural daylight / sunlight to her kitchen and bathroom. Mrs X again asked the Council to conduct an internal site visit before it made the planning application decision. Mrs X provided the Council with some photographs to support her objections.
17. The Council considered Mrs X’s objections and sought the opinion of a surveyor. The Council recommended a change to the type of roof Mrs X’s neighbour initially proposed in his application. It suggested a roof change from a ‘gable-roof’ to a ‘hipped-roof’. This was to minimise the issue of any possible overshadowing and loss of sunlight to Mrs X’s property.
18. Mrs X’s neighbour agreed with the Council’s recommendation. The applicant submitted an amended proposal to the Council to reflect the ‘hipped-roof’ change to the extension.
19. Mrs X chased the Council to confirm when it would conduct a site visit. The Council said due to the photographs Mrs X submitted with her objections, it did not consider an internal site visit was necessary. Mrs X explained to the Council that a site visit would show the true reflection of her concerns rather than it relying on the photographs.
20. The Council considered the planning application and prepared its officer report. The report included the proposal, the planning history of the site, details of objections received including Mrs X’s, the relevant policies and guidance and the case officer’s assessment of the proposal.
21. The report detailed the main issues and made specific reference to the impact on the amenities of Mrs X’s property. It stated the initial application was amended to change the two-storey extension roof to a ‘hipped-roof’ instead of a ‘gable-roof’ to reduce the amount of overshadowing to Mrs X’s property. It explained there would still be some overshadowing and loss of sunlight in any event by the location of the windows. The officer did not consider this to be unacceptable. The officer also considered the proposal did not unreasonably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties. The Council proposed to award a full planning permission.
22. The Council notified councillors about the report and its intention to grant a full planning permission. It gave the councillors the opportunity to review the report and call the application to a planning committee if there were reasons to do so. The Council confirmed the councillors did not call the application to a committee.
23. The Council granted Mrs X’s neighbour full planning permission for the two-storey rear extension with ‘hipped-roof’.
24. Mrs X questioned how the Council made its decision to grant planning permission for the extension without conducting a site visit or sunlight test. Some of the other questions Mrs X asked the Council were how much sunlight the ‘hipped-roof’ would give her, why the Council did not consider a flat-roof for the extension, the outcome of the 45-degree angle test, why her objections were not considered and if she had an appeal right.
25. The Council replied to Mrs X. It explained the photographs Mrs X provided were helpful in assessing the case and that the Council regularly make its decisions without conducting site visits. The Council confirmed it considered Mrs X’s concerns and comments before it granted her neighbour planning permission. It said its report sets out the Council’s assessment of the application and reasons for its decision with the recommendation for changes to the extension’s roof. The Council said Mrs X was a third party and so she had no right of appeal.
26. Mrs X said the Council failed to answer her questions. She said although the Council do not routinely conduct site visits, in this instance she requested a site visit and the Council ignored her request. Mrs X said she believed the Council made its decision based on its opinions. She asked the Council to answer all her questions and provide her with the scientific facts it relied on as regards the change to the two-storey extension roof.
27. The Council explained it did not carry out a site visit due to its COVID-19 Site Visit Procedure. This stated “DO NOT go to a site visit where the only access is physically through someone’s house building. Consider whether a site visit is necessary at all and what alternatives there may be i.e. Google Earth or ask the applicant or agent to send photographs. If none of this is possible and you consider a site visit is essential, please discuss the matter with….”
28. The Council said it did not consider a site visit was necessary in this case. This was because it had sufficient information to fully consider and determine the planning application. The Council said it visited the site externally when the site planning notice was displayed, it used Google Earth and relied on the photographs Mrs X submitted to it.
29. The Council said it did not conduct any scientific test as regards loss of light and overshadowing. It confirmed its assessment was based on its professional judgement in line with policies and legislation. The Council explained it assessed the initial proposal for a two-storey extension with ‘gable-roof’ had an impact that was potentially harmful to Mrs X’s amenity. This led to the Council’s recommendation and a revised proposal for a change to the roof type. The Council maintained it assessed and made its decision correctly based on the available information. It was also satisfied it had responded appropriately to Mrs X’s concerns.
30. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response. She made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

31. Mrs X alleged the Council failed to consider her concerns, objections and the impact of her neighbour’s two-storey rear extension on her property. She raised concerns about the loss of sunlight to her kitchen and bathroom and believed her objections should have prompted the Council to conduct a site visit and carried out a daylight assessment.
32. Evidence shows the Council took account of the application plans, the policies it considered relevant, comments from neighbours and all other relevant information. The Council’s decision was based on the professional judgement of its staff. In this case, I find the Council followed the process we would expect and took account of the objections and made its recommendation for an amended proposal before it granted permission. This was not fault.
33. While Mrs X hoped the Council would have agreed to her request for a site visit before it granted her neighbour planning permission, councils are not obliged to do so. The Council explained to Mrs X why it did not consider a site visit necessary in this case. The Council followed its COVID-19 Site Visit Procedure, sought advice from a surveyor, used Google Earth and available photographs. The Council considered it had sufficient information to assess and make a decision on the application. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s view a site visit was not necessary.
34. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to answer all her questions as to why the Council failed to properly assess the impact of the proposed extension on her residential amenity. In particular, overshadowing and loss of sunlight to her kitchen and bathroom.
35. We do not expect the Council to respond to objections received or to answer every point raised to it. We expect to see evidence the Council considered the objections and the material planning considerations when assessing the application. The Council considered and dealt with Mrs X’s objections. This was evident in the officer’s report. The Council also provided additional explanations to Mrs X and responded to her questions about how it had assessed the impact of the development on her property. This was not fault.
36. The officer’s decision report made specific reference to the objections Mrs X raised and the impact of the extension on her property. The Council did not say there would be no impact but rather that the impact would not be so detrimental as to warrant refusal of the planning permission. It sought changes to the proposed roof to reduce any impact. I appreciate Mrs X does not agree with the Council’s assessment and decision but the fact she disagrees is not evidence of fault.
37. My role is to decide whether the Council followed the correct process and considered relevant information in how it reached its decision. In this case evidence shows it did. I do not find evidence of fault by the Council in the way it handled Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application or how it reached its decision to grant permission.
38. As there is no evidence of fault in the administrative procedures followed in this case, there is no basis for me to criticise the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I find no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with and made its decision to grant planning permission.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman