Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s extension. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives with her family next door to a property whose owner received planning permission for an extension. She complains the Council:
1. granted permission for the extension despite it breaching the ’45 degree rule’ for both her living room windows and the impact on one of her children who has a condition affecting vision;
2. failed to visit or contact her during the planning process;
3. chose to grant the planning permission after a different extension plan she would have preferred had also been submitted.
2. Ms X says the extension overshadows her property and has significantly reduced the light to her living room. She says the matter has had a significant negative impact on her quality of life and caused upset and very severe emotional distress and anxiety. Ms X says the loss of light means she needs to consider other options to increase it again, including costly skylights, which she would not have needed to do had it not been for the Council’s planning decision. For the distress caused and the impact on her property, Ms X wants compensation from the Council of £25,000 to install a skylight.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Ms X, relevant online maps and planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Ms X says the extension breaches the ’45 degree rule’ in relation to her living room windows. The ‘rule’ is guidance to planning authorities when considering the impact of new developments on windows in nearby existing properties. Horizontal and vertical measurements determine whether the new development will cause loss of light to nearby property. The Council’s planning officer report accepts the neighbour’s extension breaches the ’45 degree’ measurements for both of Ms X’s living room windows. But its officer notes the same room is also served by glazed doors. Ms X’s photographs show two glazed doors looking out to the garden. The Council’s officer determined that the extension did not cause such significant planning harm from loss of light or overbearing impacts to justify them refusing the application. They noted Ms X’s concerns about the effects of the development on her child when reaching their decision and produced an Equalities Impact Assessment. This determined the impact was insufficient to warrant a refusal on the basis of its equality duty. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process here to justify us investigating. We realise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. We note Ms X says the Council failed to visit or contact her during the planning process. While a Council response might have been preferable here, there is no duty on councils dealing with planning applications to visit or correspond with neighbours or objectors. The planning consultation process is not a conversation or negotiation between councils and residents; it is an invitation to anyone who considers a new proposed development may affect their properties to comment on it. The planning authority’s role is to consider comments received when making their decision. The Council did this when summarising and responding to Ms X’s concerns about amenity impacts in its planning officer report. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this aspect of the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating.
9. We understand Ms X may have preferred the Council to allow the neighbours to build a different development. The online planning records show the Council refused the neighbour’s other application, so they did not have a choice between that proposal and the development granted permission. Planning authorities cannot dictate to applicants what development they must seek permission for. They have a duty to consider and decide all valid applications put before them. It was not fault by the Council to make its decision on this application rather than seeking some other different development proposal from the neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman