Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not follow the correct procedure when granting planning permission. We found the Council at fault for how it considered Ms X’s objections, as the officer’s report was too brief and her supporting photos were not included. This caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has proposed actions to remedy this, which we consider proportionate.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not follow the correct procedure when granting planning permission for a neighbouring property.
2. She says the development will reduce natural light to her property. It will have a financial impact as she will need to use artificial lighting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence Ms X provided and the planning application and officer’s report published by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Planning permission

8. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
9. Material planning considerations may include:

• Loss of light
• Access to the highway.
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenities.

10. Material planning considerations do not include:

• Views from a property.
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

11. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Site Visits

12. Council officers and planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using aerial photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.

Case officer reports

13. There is often no legal duty to produce a report. However, we do expect councils to keep a written record of their decisions.
14. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not only to help the council decide on the application. It is also 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.
15. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:

• do not need to include every 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 on 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.

What happened

16. In March 2025, Ms X submitted comments on a planning application for works to a neighbouring property. She objected to the proposal, raising concerns it would reduce natural light to her home and create a sense of enclosure. She also provided photos to support her concerns.
17. In April, the Council granted planning permission. The officer’s report considered the impact to neighbouring amenity, including outlook and sense of enclosure, but did not specifically refer to loss of light.
18. In May, Ms X complained to the Council. She said her concerns had not been properly considered and she had difficulty contacting the case officer regarding the photos she submitted.
19. In June, the Council responded to Ms X. It accepted the officer’s report was too brief and did not fully address her concerns. It said Ms X’s photographs had been received but did not upload to the portal, so they did not form part of the decision. It also said a site visit may have been beneficial.
20. However, the Council said planning permission would still likely have been granted, as with similar nearby developments the Council commonly approves. It offered Ms X £250 to recognise the shortcomings in the handling of its application.
21. Ms X remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint in June.
22. In its final response, the Council again acknowledged the report lacked detail. However, it maintained its position that the development would not have a significant impact on neighbouring amenity and that the outcome would have been the same. It referred to similar nearby developments which had been approved.

Planning documents and officer report

23. The officer’s report summarised the objections raised by neighbouring residents. These included:
• Loss of light and solar gain
• Impact on privacy
• Sense of enclosure
24. The report states the raised ridge would not create a significant sense of enclosure and concludes that, “the proposal is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring amenities”. It also considers the impact on neighbouring properties’ solar gain, noting this was assessed by the case officer who found the proposal will not affect this due to the separation distance between the application site and neighbouring properties.
25. The design and access statement specifically refers to the impact of sunlight on neighbours on Ms X’s road. It explains the flat roof height of three metres would not have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties due to separation distances, and that the proposal is set back to the rear. The officer’s report reflects this; it notes the proposal is set back from the boundary of adjoining rear gardens.
26. The design and access statement also referred to the 45-degree rule, specifically concerning the property directly adjoining the application site.
27. In assessing the impact, the planning officer also referred to a recently approved neighbouring application with similar proposals. It concluded it would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.
28. The officer stated they did not complete a site visit but used Google Earth and Streetview as part of its assessment.

My findings

29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not make planning decisions. Our role is to consider whether the Council acted with fault in applying relevant legislation, guidance, or local policy in relation to the matters raised.
30. The Council acknowledged shortcomings in how it recorded its consideration of Ms X’s objections. It accepted the officer’s report was too brief and did not specifically address loss of light, which is a material consideration and was a key concern raised by Ms X. This was fault.
31. I also find fault with the Council for not uploading Ms X’s photos to the planning portal, meaning they were not formally part of the decision-making process. This was poor record keeping.
32. It is ultimately for the Council to decide whether the impact is sufficiently significant, in planning terms, to justify refusal. The planning report did consider the impact on neighbouring amenity, and concluded that it was not detrimental, so the Council approved the application. It is not a legal requirement for a site visit to be completed.
33. I have therefore considered whether the identified faults affected the outcome of the decision. In its complaint response, the Council maintained the planning decision would not have changed, even if loss of light had been specifically referred to in the report. It also referred to similar nearby developments which have been approved, supporting its view that the proposal was acceptable.
34. While officer reports do not need to cover every possible planning consideration or be perfect, in this case the lack of detail and failure to reference loss of light meant Ms X’s objections were not properly recorded.
35. On the balance of probabilities I have concluded the decision to grant planning permission would not have been different even if the case report had specifically referred to loss of light. As such, these faults did not undermine the overall planning judgement reached. However, they caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty about whether her concerns were properly considered. The Council has offered Ms X £250 and will remind officers of the importance of including key considerations in reports. I consider this is a proportionate remedy to the injustice identified.

Back to top

Action

36. Within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council should provide us with evidence that it has complied with the actions it offered Ms X. These actions are:
• Pay Ms X £250 to recognise the fault it admitted.
• Remind officers of the importance of including key considerations in reports.

Back to top

Decision

37. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has already agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman