Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that there was fault in the way the Council dealt with a planning application and a reported breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of faulty the Council to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mer X says the Council failed to properly take account of the 45-degree line when considering the loss of light to his property from an extension planned by a neighbour. He also says the Council should take action against a breach of planning control as the intended works are too high.

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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning authorities must consider relevant planning matters when deciding planning applications. But they have wide discretion over what relative weight to give to those matters.
6. The planned development was a single storey extension. The 45-degree line concerns loss of light, and is a relevant matter planning authorities must consider when deciding planning applications. But it is not an absolute matter that prevents approval. Instead, the authority must decide whether it finds the loss of light of a neighbour acceptable. In this case, the planning officer’s report shows he considered Mr X’s objection, but took the view that the extension was not much larger than the size where no planning permission would have been required. He decided the effect on light to Mr X’s property was acceptable. My role is not to decide if the planning officer’s view was right, but to decide if he reached his decision properly. By considering whether the loss of light was acceptable, he did so. That Mr X takes a different view is not evidence of fault.
7. Regarding enforcement, Mr X said ground levels meant the extension would be higher than the height stated in the approved plans. I note the Council visited the site and found no breach of planning control because development had not started. It invited Mr X to report any breach that happened once work had started. If we investigated, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s response to a breach of planning control before work had started.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman