Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to deal with an email from her surveyor asking for an extension to the deadline for comments on her neighbour’s planning application. She says her surveyors’ light report shows her neighbour’s extension does not comply with Building Research Establishment (BRE) and she will lose significant loss of sunlight to her patio.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s neighbour applied for permission to build a single storey rear and side extension.
6. The Council publicised the application. Ms X objected to the proposal saying:
• the proposal will cause her to lose light
• it will cause party wall issues; and
• it will have a negative impact on her view.
7. The planning officer visited the application site and wrote a report on the scheme. The report included details of relevant national and local planning policies and why the Officer considers the proposal is acceptable.
8. It also includes a summary of the objections received and the Officer’s opinion on the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, including Ms X’s home.
9. Having considered the height and width of the proposed extension and the angle of the roof, they decided the extension will not have a negative impact on Ms X’s home. Party wall matters and loss of a view are not material planning considerations and therefore Ms X’s objections on these points did not form part of the Council’s consideration of the planning application.
10. I understand Ms X commissioned a light survey to consider the impact of the proposal on her home. She says the surveyor emailed the Council asking for an extension to the deadline for comments to submit the completed survey.
11. The Council confirms the email was sent to a generic planning mailbox, not directly to the officer dealing with the application. They confirm the Officer did not receive the request to extend the deadline for objections until after the application was approved.
12. I understand Ms X is concerned the Council decided the proposed extension will not impact her home without visiting her home and without considering the survey she commissioned.
13. However, the Council is under no obligation to visit her property. It is for experienced planning professionals to consider the planning proposals and its impact on the surrounding area.
14. Also, when dealing with a planning application, the Council is not required to do more for third parties than to:
• publicise the application and/or notify neighbours
• receive and consider comments on the application; and
• issue a decision.
15. It is not required to engage in correspondence with neighbours or anyone else. Also, the Council is required to decide planning applications within specific timeframes. It can ask the applicant for an extension to the deadline for determination, but it is not required to extend deadlines for third parties.
16. It was Ms X’s decision to commission a survey, however the Council had no duty to delay making a decision on the application to wait for information from Ms X.
17. When planning authorities receive planning applications, they must consider relevant planning matters in reaching a decision. These may be obvious or be raised by members of the public who comment on the applications. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 specifies a range of relevant planning matters. Among these are the possible effects on the amenity of neighbours. This can be in terms of size, scale, light pollution, odour, loss of privacy and others. While the planning authority must consider all those that are relevant, it has discretion about what weight to give to them. The Ombudsman’s role is only to consider whether the planning authority acted correctly by considering relevant planning matters, not to reach her own view of them where there is no fault.
18. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Ms X’s objections to the proposal are summarised in the delegated report.
• The case officer has visited the site, and the delegated report considers the relevant planning policies and the impact on neighbours.
• Applications are assessed on their own merits, taking into account the relevant planning policies and material considerations which prevail at the time.
19. The report specifically considers the impact on Ms X’s home. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
20. Ms X also complains the Council failed to respond to her complaint according to published timeframes. The Council has apologised for the delay, and I consider further investigation of this point alone will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve her neighbour’s planning application before she presented her light survey report. And investigation of the Council’s delay in responding to her complaint would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman