Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also unlikely we could say the matter caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of his neighbour’s development on light to his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s complaint is based on the Council’s assessment of the impact of his neighbour’s development based on its application of guidance referred to as the “45 degree code”. In Mr X’s case this looks at whether the proposed development will breach a line drawn at 45 degrees from the centre of his window outwards towards his neighbour’s property. Mr X suggests the code should be applied without any “subjective assessment” by the Council’s planning department.
6. Mr X’s neighbour’s development breaches the 45 degree line but the Council determined that in the circumstances this was acceptable. Mr X disagrees with its decision and suggests planning permission should have been refused as the proposal does not comply with the code.
7. We are not an appeal body and cannot reassess the proposal to come to our own view on whether the proposal is acceptable. We also have no powers to question the Council’s judgement unless there was evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
8. I have considered the planning officer’s report and the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint and these adequately explain the reasons behind its decision to grant planning permission. The Council’s policies do not require refusal of an application simply because it breaches the 45 degree line from Mr X’s property. Regardless of this fact the Council must apply its judgement to decide if the proposal is acceptable. It has decided it is acceptable and it is not for us to criticise its decision.
9. The Council has also explained to Mr X that due to inaccuracies in the plans it does not consider the permission can be implemented. It is therefore unlikely we could say the Council’s handling of the application has caused Mr X significant injustice in any event.
10. Mr X’s neighbour has now submitted a new application and Mr X will have an opportunity to comment on this before the Council reaches its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or of significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman