Summary: Mr X complained the Council breached its local plan policies when it considered and granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development. Mr X said as a result, the development has significantly reduced his property amenity and lessened its value. There was no fault by the Council in how it considered and made its decision to grant planning permission for Mr X’s neighbour’s development.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. breached its planning policies when it granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development
2. failed to explain how its decision complied with its planning policies
3. failed to properly assess the development’s impact on his property.
2. Mr X said his neighbour’s development has significantly reduced his property’s amenity, deprived it of natural light and affected its outlook. Mr X also said the development has devalued his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated matters from May 2024 to January 2025. This covers the period from when Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning permission application to the Council to when Mr X made a complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. Local authority power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission is required for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority or deemed to be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
9. Permission is required for development, which includes building, engineering or other works in, on, over or under land, or the material change in use of any buildings or land.
10. A full planning permission application should be made for:

• Retrospective planning permission
• A change of use of land or buildings
• The carrying out of mining, engineering or operations other than building operations.

11. In deciding whether it is expedient to start enforcement action, the Local Planning Authorities will wish to take account of several different factors including national and local planning policies, permitted development rights, whether the development is likely to be granted planning permission, and the need to achieve a balance between protecting amenity and permitting development which is acceptable.
12. When considering planning applications, councils can only take account of material considerations. These relate to the use and development of land in the public interest. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking and loss of light or overshadowing. Councils cannot take account of private considerations such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property or loss of private rights to light.
13. The volume or strength of local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission. However, councils must consider any material planning considerations raised in comments from local people and produce a report.
14. The report must set out key considerations such as the council’s policy, objections from neighbours and explain why and how the council has reached its conclusion. However, the courts have it clear that that the case officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

15. When considering complaints about how a council has considered a planning application, we look for evidence that a proper process was followed before a decision was made. We expect to see evidence that the Council has identified the material planning considerations, such as impact on neighbours’ amenity raised by the application and that they have been properly considered. The weight the council gives to them is a matter for its judgement. We will not come to our own view on the merits of the planning application.

Key events

16. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning permission for an extension on their property.
17. The planning application was considered by a case officer, who wrote a report which included:

• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of planning history considered relevant;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including design and character of area, the impact on residential amenities and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.

18. Mr X raised his objections about the planning permission application, and he subsequently complained about the Council’s decision to grant approval for the extension.
19. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider his neighbour’s planning permission application. In particular Mr X complained the Council failed to adhere to its own planning policies before it granted approval for the extension. The policies Mr X alleged the Council breached were:
1. Local Plan Policy HO11 which states “permission should only be granted if there is no detrimental impact upon the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties to include privacy, daylight and sunlight, and outlook”
2. The 2018 Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document, Key Principle HS7 which states “the proposed extension should not worsen the outlook from any rear habitable room window located lower than the proposed extension.”
20. Mr X said as a result the approved development would affect his property’s amenity, deprive it of natural light, affect the outlook and it would devalue his property.
21. In its responses, the Council:
1. acknowledged Mr X’s points that the policy does not clearly qualify detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. It said residents sometimes disagree with its interpretation of the Local Plan policies, but that the Council endeavors to properly apply and judge each case on its own merits.
2. explained that determination of a detrimental impact is a matter of planning judgement based on policy, guidance and any other material considerations. The Council said it was not the same as there being no impact because most development will have some form of impact if it is visible from a neighbouring property.
3. further explained that to literally interpret the policy to mean there should be no acceptable levels of detrimental impact, would likely render majority of household extensions unacceptable, and thereby fail to achieve an appropriate balance with residents.
4. assured Mr X that it conducted a site visit, it took into account representations and all material considerations including the impact the extension would have on Mr X’s property. The Council said it concluded the extension would not present an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenities to warrant refusal of the application.
5. maintained it followed the correct process when it considered and made its decision to grant the planning permission for the extension.
22. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response, and he made a complaint to the Ombudsman. Mr X maintained the Council did not follow its local plan policies and failed to demonstrate there was ‘no detrimental impact’ on neighbouring amenities (daylight/sunlight and outlook) before it granted approval for his neighbour’s development.

Analysis

23. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
24. In this case, before the Council made its planning decision, it considered the plans, comments from neighbours and other consultees, and local and national policy. These were set out in the officer’s report with explanation on how the Council reached its decision to grant the planning permission for the extension. This is the planning process we expect and so I find no fault with the Council’s decision-making process.
25. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant. Planning decisions are made by balancing different policies and material planning considerations, so we would only criticise a council if it failed to take account of a material issue or took account of an issue that was not relevant to its decision.
26. However, I understand why Mr X complained the Council did not follow its policies as set out above in paragraph 19. Mr X read these policies literally to mean there should be no detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties which included natural light, and the outlook which Mr X said his property had now been deprived of due to his neighbour’s development.
27. While planning law cannot guarantee there will be no impact on neighbouring properties, it does require planning authorities to assess potential negative effects on neighbouring properties before a decision is made to either grant or refuse planning permission. As I already stated, I am satisfied the Council took account of material considerations and considered the potential impact of neighbouring amenities before it reached its decision to grant its approval for the extension.
28. I also understand why Mr X interpreted the Council’s policy wording to impose strict controls against neighbouring development than they do in practice. He points to policy wording, which says there will be no detrimental impact and no worsening of outlook, and then to impacts on his amenity that are affected by the new development.
29. If the policy words are applied literally, without any qualification or explanation about how conflicting policies and considerations are balanced against each other to make a planning judgement, it would be easy to conclude that only developments where there is no impact on neighbouring amenities would be approved. The Council’s explanation in its complaint response of how it applies policy is correct and consistent with planning law, as we understand it. We have noticed that many councils use words in their policy to show a planning judgement is being made, and to do this, they often use phrases like ‘significant impact’ or ‘causing unacceptable harm to amenity’ etc.
30. In view of this, it might be helpful if, when it next reviews its planning policies, the Council carefully considers how its policy wording best reflects its planning practice.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find no fault by the Council in how it considered and made its decision to grant planning permission for Mr X’s neighbour’s development.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman