Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application and complaint. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has been inconsistent and unfair in its approach to her neighbour’s planning application. She says it has:
• ignored legal precedent that solar panels are a material planning consideration
• is biased towards the neighbour
• refused to allow Mrs X to present a shadow projection to the planning committee
• allowed her neighbour to present a 'doctored’ shadow projection; and
• allowed her complaint to be investigated by one of the people who was a subject of her complaint.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In April 2023, the Council granted planning permission for Mrs X’s neighbour to convert their home to a chalet bungalow, install dormers to the front and rear, with extensions to the front and rear. The Council therefore considered the development on the site was acceptable.
6. Towards the end of 2023, the Council received a new planning application for the same site. This was for similar changes to the building as previously approved. However, it also included a new garage to the front of the property.
7. The Council says it received emails from Mrs X’s husband (Mr X), with concerns about the impact of the garage on their property, including their solar panels. It confirms officers held a meeting with Mr X and the applicant. It also confirms it responded to Mr X’s emails in January and February 2024.
8. Following the meeting, the Council received new plans including changes to the garage including:
• reducing the size and height of the proposed garage; and
• relocating the proposed site of the garage further back from the highway.
9. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes Mrs X’s objections to the proposal including the impact on her solar panels.
10. The Council’s Planning Committee considered the application. Mrs X spoke to the Committee. She questioned the need for a large garage and voiced her concerns about overshadowing of her solar panels, the subsequent loss of generated electricity and overbearing appearance of the building.
11. Officers advised the Committee it must consider the impact on Mrs X’s amenity and possible dominance of the proposal. But they confirmed that right to light is a civil matter. The Committee decided to defer the application and obtain more information on the possible overshadowing of Mrs X’s solar panels.
12. The application returned to the Planning Committee. Officers confirmed they did not consider the impact of the new garage will be so severe on Mrs X’s solar panels as to justify refusing the application.
13. Again, Mrs X spoke in her objection and accused Officers of deliberately misleading the Committee. Having heard from those for and against the proposal, and debating the application, the Council voted unanimously to approve the application.
14. The Ombudsman is not 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.
15. The information I have seen shows the Council engaged with Mrs X on her concerns about the proposed garage. It negotiated with the applicants and achieved a reduction in the size and height of the garage. The garage was relocated within the plot because of Councillors’ previous concerns about its impact on the street scene. Having considered the information provided, including Mrs X’s representations, the Planning Committee and Officers were satisfied the application was acceptable. This is a decision they are entitled to make.
16. Mrs X says the impact on her solar panels is a material planning consideration. However, the Council considered the impact of the proposal, and sought further information about the possible overshadowing the garage would cause. It decided that, while there would be an impact, it was not so severe as to justify refusing the application. Therefore, as the Council considered her objection, I cannot find fault in the way it dealt with the planning application.
17. Mrs X also complains about the Council’s complaint procedure. This says that responsibility for stage one of the procedure sits with the Team Leader/Manager of the relevant service. And responsibility for the review at stage two of the procedure sits with the relevant Manager/Assistant Director/Director of the relevant service. There is no evidence the Council did not follow its published policy.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application and the subsequent complaint to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman