Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application made by Mrs X’s neighbour because there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council have not considered all of the relevant policies in a planning application made by her neighbour. She says this has resulted in an overbearing extension being agreed which will block light to the back of her house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a single-story extension which has been approved. Mrs X says the extension is closer to her boundary than the Council’s policy allows, and the length of the extension means it does not follow the 45-degree guidance regarding light to neighbouring windows.
6. The extension has not yet been built but Mrs X says it will affect the light levels she experiences. Mrs X says the extension should be set one metre back from the boundary wall. The nearest part of her property faces south south-east. The nearest window in Mrs X’s property therefore would receive direct sunlight for a substantial part of the day without a shadow being cast by the extension. Also, as the extension will only have one storey, it would only affect sunlight to Mrs X’s window at times when the sun is low in the sky. Mrs X argues the extension should be one metre farther from her boundary to comply with the Council’s policy. However, I do not consider that would significantly change the amount of light reaching Mrs X’s window. Overall, I do not consider any reduction in light levels to be sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused to her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman