Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application, which he said will affect solar panels behind his home and business. The Council took account of significant planning considerations, including Mr X’s concerns, before it made its decision, so there was no fault in the decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land behind his home. Mr X said the development will overshadow his solar panels, making them less efficient.

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 have a wide discretion and may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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 read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s responses to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report. I read the committee meeting minutes and viewed a video recording of the meeting.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
9. 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.
10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

What happened

11. The Council received a planning application to develop land behind Mr X’s home. Mr X objected in writing about the impact the development would have on his solar panels. Mr X also wrote to members of the planning committee about his concerns and he spoke at the planning committee meeting.
12. The Council’s planning case officer considered the application and wrote a report setting out their views on the main issues and their recommendations. The case officer report included:
• A description of the proposal and site;
• A summary of relevant planning history;
• Comments from neighbours and other consultees, including a detailed summary of Mr X’s concerns about the impact the development would have on his solar panels;
• Light impact assessments from the applicant’s agent, from Mr X’s agent and an independent expert commissioned by the Council;
• Relevant planning policy and guidance;
• An appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on Mr X’s solar panels, heritage assets, residential amenity and highway safety; and
• The officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
13. The committee minutes show it considered Mr X’s concerns about his solar panels.
14. A video recording of the meeting shows that:
• The case officer summarised Mr X’s concerns, including his objection that his solar panel was not shown in the correct location. The case officer also summarised the main findings of the independent expert’s report and reminded members the Council had commissioned the report because of conflicting opinions in reports from the applicant’s and Mr X’s experts.
• Mr X spoke and said that the models used by the Council’s independent expert showed his solar panels in the wrong location.
• Committee members discussed Mr X’s solar panels. One member asked whether they had been installed before or after an earlier application for development on the site had been approved. Another member asked why Mr X’s panels were only 9 metres from the boundary, if they were meant to be 10 metres away. It was also suggested that the panels might be fitted further away or on a higher frame to resolve the issue.
• The case officer answered members’ questions, saying that the solar panels were approved after the earlier application had expired, but the earlier approval establishing development on the site was still a material consideration for the current application. The case officer said that if Mr X’s panels were not in the location shown on approved plans, this would be a breach of a planning condition. The case officer also said one of the conditions they had proposed could control planting of trees on the boundary to reduce further light reduction on the panels.
15. The Council approved the application subject to planning conditions. One of the conditions controlled planting of hedges and trees on the boundary to protect Mr X’s solar panels.
16. Mr X said the Council was not in a position to approve the application because it had not properly understood the issues. Mr X said his panels were 9 metres from the boundary, not 10 metres as was shown on the plan. Mr X said he wrote to the Council and individual members and addressed the planning committee about his concerns before it made its decision.
17. The Council said the applicant had used a drawing from Mr X’s solar panel application to show the location of his panels, and it was not unreasonable to have assumed they had been constructed in the correct location.
18. In its stage 1 response to his complaint, the Council quoted Mr X’s solicitor, who had said:

‘Our client has pointed out more than once that the [solar panel] array was actually shown constructed one metre closer to the boundary with the development site than shown on the original drawings’.

19. The Council then went on to say the solicitor’s letter appears to confirm Mr X’s panels were not erected in accordance with approved plans.
20. In its stage 2 complaint response, the Council said that, at the request of the committee Chair, it asked the independent consultant to confirm their understanding of the position of Mr X’s solar panels – the independent expert said they were 9 metres from the boundary, but the difference in impact between 9 and 10 metres was insignificant.

My findings

21. 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, and if we find it, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant.
22. Mr X said the committee members did not properly understand the solar panel issues as they were based on incorrect and inadequate information. Mr X believes this happened because the case officer misled the independent expert as to the location of his panels.
23. I cannot know what the Council members actually understood after considering the application, but the records show that before it made its decision, the committee took account of:
• The application and supporting documents, including light impact assessments from the applicant and Mr X, and an updated independent light impact assessment commissioned by the Council;
• Comments from Mr X, planning officers and the applicant’s agents; and
• Relevant planning policy, including the national planning policy framework guidance on renewable energy schemes.
24. The Council knew of Mr X’s concerns about the position of his panels, and if it had chosen to do so, it might have refused approval, or deferred its decision to gather more information. It did not do this but made a decision that Mr X does not agree with. However, it followed the decision-making process we would expect and so I find no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I completed my investigation as there was no fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman