Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s extension. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It considered Mr X’s concerns about light and incorrect measurements prior to granting permission. For this reason, we cannot question the merits of the Council's decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s assessment of his neighbour’s planning application. He says that incorrect measurements were used by a light surveyor.
2. Mr X says the development will significantly affect his amenity.

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 considered all the information provided by Mr X about the complaint, both verbally and in writing. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
6. I provided Mr X and the Council with a draft version of this decision and took account of any comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Planning applications

7. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives councils the power to decide if planning applications should be approved, refused or approved subject to planning conditions. Councils must decide the application under their development plan unless any other material considerations suggest otherwise.
8. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as reduction in the value of a property. They include issues such as.

• impact on neighbouring amenity;
• loss of sunlight;
• overshadowing/loss of outlook to the detriment of residential amenity (though not loss of view as such).

9. Councils' case officers need to consider the proposed development. The case officer's report should identify the key deciding issues, have accurate descriptions and summarise responses from consultees and notifications. The report should also refer to the development policies, national policies and other material considerations relevant to deciding the application. The case officer should recommend a decision that follows from a reasoned analysis of the relevant issues.

What happened

10. In February 2020, the Council received a planning application from Mr X’s neighbour (Mr D) to vary the specifications of a side extension that had already received planning permission.
11. Mr X, and others, objected to the application. He said the proposed development would result in significant loss of amenity, particularly as his side bedroom window would be directly affected through lack of light.
12. A lighting survey (the Original Survey) that had been obtained as part of the original planning permission indicated it a was borderline case.
13. Following further objections and a specific request from the town council, an up-to-date lighting survey (the Second Survey) was commissioned by Mr D and received by the Council in October 2020. This report concluded that the loss of daylight was within acceptable limits and it would have little impact on Mr X’s property. This information was shared with Mr X.
14. Shortly afterwards Mr X emailed the Council to explain that incorrect measurements had been used in the Second Survey (the actual height of the window is 401cm, not 430cm). Mr X believed this invalidated the conclusions of the Second Survey.
15. The Council says it contacted the author of the Second Survey and Mr D who provided the Council with clarification about the measurement discrepancies.
16. The case officer’s report included Mr X’s objections and addressed them as follows:

• The Original Survey acknowledged the proposals were close to failing, and for this reason the Second Survey had been requested from Mr D.
• Based on the light surveys and modest increase in the size of the development it was not considered to be unacceptable regarding loss of light and so there was no unacceptable impact on residential amenity.

17. In November 2020, planning permission was granted by the Council.
18. Mr X complained to the Council because it should not have gone ahead and approved the development without considering the crucial information about the height of his window in his October 2020 email. He was also unhappy that the case officer failed to respond to his subsequent enquiry. He explained that the light survey had already indicated that it was borderline case and so any discrepancies with measurements, particularly as the window was lower, would inevitably result in further loss of light.
19. In response, the Council accepted there had been an error with the plans. However, it explained upon receipt of Mr X’s email, the case officer had discussed the discrepancy with the light surveyor directly over the phone. This was taken into consideration before when making the decision to approve Mr D’s application.
20. Dissatisfied with this response, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

21. My role is to examine how the Council considered the planning application. It is not to take a view on the merits of the application or the case officer’s professional judgement. If there has been fault, I must consider if that has resulted in a different decision and if it has, consider a remedy.
22. Neighbours may express a view and the Council must consider any comments. The Council must consider the material planning considerations raised. The Council must decide if the objections show it should refuse the application or impose planning conditions to make it acceptable.
23. I do not consider the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with this planning application. I say this because:
1. The case officer, in his report, clearly took account of objections to the application including those made by Mr X about light.
2. The Council had regard for the relevant planning policies and development plans.
3. The Council responded to Mr X’s further objections by asking Mr D to obtain an updated light assessment. This demonstrates the Council actively responded to a contentious issue that was relevant to its decision. This was the correct approach.
4. The Council responded to Mr X’s concern about the height of his window by discussing this with the author of the Second Survey and Mr D. I am satisfied the Council made its decision based on accurate information. It was not obliged to request another survey.
24. Planning is a matter of judgement, where the Council weighs different aspects of local and national guidance before coming to a decision. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s judgement the proposal does not adversely impact the amenity of his property. This does not make the Council’s decision wrong. My overall assessment of the complaint is that the case officer who recommended approval wrote a thorough report which explained and weighed the relevant matters fairly. He recommended granting planning permission having fully considered the facts of the case. The impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of Mr X was duly considered, but any adverse impact was not deemed so significant as to warrant refusal of permission. Planning officers have a wide discretion in making their decisions. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I find the Council acted without fault in deciding a planning application next to Mr X’s property. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman