Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application, which he said caused a loss of light and poor outlook from his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess the impact their neighbour’s extension would have on their amenities before it approved a planning application for a large extension.

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. 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

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report. I discussed the case with the case officer, who explained how he had considered the application.
5. I gave Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and took account of the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
10. We recognise that councils have discretion to depart from their policy and guidance, but they need to demonstrate they have exercised that discretion properly. We normally expect to find evidence of consideration of the key material issues in the case officer’s report, which is written to advise the decision making body or individual.
11. We accept that delegated reports might be written differently, as their target audience is a professional planner, not a member of the planning committee. However, delegated reports still need to demonstrate the core issues have been considered and set out the reasons for judgements on planning matters, albeit briefly stated.
12. The purpose of the report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether a council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
13. Planning officers may consider the loss of light or overbearing impact a new development is likely to have on existing buildings. They often use a rule of thumb, known as the ’45-degree rule’. To do this, they imagine a 45-degree line from the mid-point of the nearest habitable room window on the neighbour’s property. They will often consider any development beyond 45 degrees as likely to be unacceptable. Some councils include this test, or versions of it, in their published Supplementary Planning Guidance, which shows how they apply policy to protect amenities.
14. Planning guidance and policy should not be treated as if it creates a binding rule that must be followed. Councils must take account of their policy along with other material planning considerations.

What happened

15. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a large side and rear extension to his house.
16. Mr X wrote to the Council with his objections on how the new building would impact him in terms of loss of light and an overbearing impact.
17. The case officer visited the site, but due to COVID-19 restrictions he did not go to the rear of the site. The case officer said that he was able to see the orientation of the buildings and the space between them. He said that with this and other information from the plans and aerial photos, he was satisfied he had enough information to make his recommendation.
18. The case officer explained he had made comments on the Council’s ‘45-degree rule’ guidance in relation to comments in an objection, but this was not the main reason for his view on the matter. The case officer said that his opinion about the impact on light and outlook are set out in the analysis section of the report, in which he said the development was acceptable because of its orientation and the separation distance between it and the neighbouring property, Mr X’s home.

My findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for fault in the decision making process. If we find it, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant.
20. Before it made its decision, the Council took account of the application plans, policy it considered relevant, comments from neighbours and other material considerations, including information from the site visit and aerial photos.
21. The Council followed the decision making process we would expect and so I find no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I completed my investigation as I found no fault in the decision making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman