Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a house extension on land next to her home. Mrs X said the new extension will reduce light and adversely affect the outlook from her home. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for Mrs X or any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s house extension without consulting her. If Mrs X had the opportunity to comment, she would have objected because the extension reduces light, and is large and unsightly.

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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mrs X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including records of neighbour notification letters, the plans and the case officer’s report.
4. I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

5. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
6. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
7. 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.
8. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
9. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.
10. For major development applications, councils must publicise the application by:
• a local newspaper advertisement; and either
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
11. For all other applications, including minor developments, councils must publicise by either:
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
12. As well as regulatory minimum requirements, councils must also produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the Council’s policy on how it will communicate with the public when it carries out its functions. It is not unusual for SCI policy to commit councils to do more than the minimum legal requirements, for example, to put up a site notice and to serve notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
13. Councils may serve notice by post using normal postal delivery. They are not obliged to prove these letters were delivered to the addressees.

What happened

14. A few years ago, Mrs X’s neighbour applied for planning permission.
15. The Council provided evidence from its document management system that it produced notification letters for neighbours, including one for Mrs X.
16. The Council’s planning case officer considered the application and wrote a report, which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• details of planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and design issues; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
17. The application was approved by an officer using delegated powers.
18. Building work did not begin straight away, but when it did, Mrs X complained to the Council. The Council responded to say that its records showed that it had produced and sent a neighbour notification letter and that all material planning considerations, including the impact on neighbours’ amenities, had been taken into account.
19. In response to an earlier draft of this decision, Mrs X said:
• if she had objected, she would have pointed out that a room in her home was now a habitable room. The case officer had said there was some limited overshadowing to this room, but when planning permission was granted for it, it was planned for a non-habitable use.
• the development will impact the value of her home.

My findings

20. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
21. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• is it likely there was fault?
• is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
22. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
23. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
24. I should not investigate this complaint further, and my reasons are as follows:
• the evidence shows that the Council did produce notification letters for Mrs X and other neighbours.
• even if there was some fault in the publicity process, the case officer’s report shows that the impact the development would have on Mrs X’s amenities was considered before a decision was made.
• the Council followed the decision making process we would expect, and further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for Mrs X or any other meaningful outcome.
• the case officer did say that plans for Mrs X’s home showed the nearest room was non-habitable, but this was one of several reasons to support their view that a refusal was not justified. Even if there was evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision, I cannot say the outcome would have been different.
• the impact on property values is not a planning consideration. We only recommend compensation for loss of property value in exceptional circumstances, but would need evidence of fault causing a significant impact on amenity that cannot be resolved by practical measures. For the reasons given above, I am unlikely to find fault or recommend a remedy.

Final decision

25. I ended my investigation because further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for Mrs X or any other meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman