Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a householder planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to properly consider her neighbour’s planning application for an extension. She says it will result in overshadowing and a loss of daylight, sunlight and privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start 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))
3. We can 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

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• the planning policies relevant to the application.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision on her neighbours planning application. But the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
6. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application to justify starting an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The neighbour notification letter advises the Council will not acknowledge receipt of comments submitted about an application.
• The case officer visited the application site. There is no requirement to visit neighbouring properties.
• Mrs X’s objections are summarised in the case officer’s report.
• Planning applications are assessed against national and local planning policies, and any other material considerations; the permitted development thresholds/criteria are not relevant.
• The report considers the impact of the extension on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. In particular, it concludes the separation distance will mitigate against any loss of light or sense of overbearing, and that the rear windows afford limited views over neighbouring gardens. The report also considers the residual amenity space at the application site.
• The case officer was entitled to reach a professional judgement that the proposal would not cause a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, even if Mrs X disagrees with this conclusion.
• The complaint responses confirm the Council is satisfied the 25 and 45 degree rules are not breached.
• The ‘right to light’ is a civil matter, and not a material planning consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman