Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for an extension to a property next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council ignored the 45-degree rule and his right to light when it granted planning permission for his neighbour’s extension.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. The Council received a planning application for work including a single storey side extension. A planning officer visited the site and wrote a report on the proposal.
6. It is clear from the planning officer’s report that the officer was aware of the relationship between the development site and Mr X’s home. The officer concluded:
• there is no loss of outlook on Mr X’s habitable rooms
• no loss of daylight
• no shadow cast into rooms
• no overlooking into rooms
• loss of privacy on private gardens but this is considered acceptable
• no negative impact on the street scene.
7. The application was recommended for approval and the application was approved under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
8. Mr X complained to the Council that the roof on the single storey side extension will cut across the 45-degree line of one of his first-floor windows and obscure his view.
9. Some councils use the 45-degree test when considering applications for new buildings or extensions which might cause a loss of daylight, or overshadowing, to a nearby house. A planning officer will draw an imaginary line from the nearest front or rear window of the house affected by the work. If the new building or extension crosses the 45-degree line it is likely to affect the outlook and daylight of the neighbour. However, that does not mean the application will be refused. The Council must assess the significance and impact of any potential loss of daylight or overshadowing.
10. The Council advised the 45-degree test is a guide only and was not considered as the extension is single storey, rising to 2.5 metres at the eaves with a gable roof. As there is already a 1.8 metre wall in front of the property it does not consider the extension will significantly worsen the outlook from his property.
11. In deciding an application, councils must consider what people say about the proposals, but they do not have to agree with them. Councils must also look at planning policy and all other relevant planning matters affecting the development, often weighing, and balancing competing views and interests to reach a planning decision.
12. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether we agree with the judgment of the Council’s officers.
13. The Council is satisfied the planning officer was aware of the location of Mr X’s property. It decided a single storey extension with a gable roof reaching 2.5 metres at the eaves will not have an unacceptable impact on Mr X’s home which warranted refusal of the application.
14. Mr X is concerned the new extension will affect his right to light. However, this is a legal issue rather than a planning consideration. He may wish to seek legal advice about making a claim against his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application. The planning officer’s report shows the Council was aware of the location of his home in relating to the proposed development and considered the impact it will have.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman