Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered and approved his neighbour’s planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• failed to consult on amended plans
• accepted revised plans at a late stage
• failed to consider the neighbour made internal changes before deciding to approve the application
• discounted his BRE daylight assessment; and
• failed to correctly consider his complaint.

Mr X wants the Council to withdraw the planning permission and revert the application back to the consultation stage.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations concern the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide what weight to give to any material considerations in deciding a planning application.
6. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
7. From the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development. The planning officer visited Mr X’s property to consider the impact of the scheme on his home. The officer’s report also details the impact on Mr X’s home in relation to loss of light to Mr X’s windows, overlooking and construction.
8. The report explains why the officer considers the application should be approved. It confirms the extension is visible from Mr X’s home and may reduce the light to his windows. However, the overall impact of the extension will not be so significant “given the already compromised relationship between the properties.”
9. Mr X has also referred to his right to light. While planning authorities do need to consider loss of light, the Right to Light Act is not a material planning consideration, rather it is a private civil matter.
10. Mr X says the Council accepted amended plans and failed to consult the public again. However, guidance published by the Government states:

“Where an application has been amended it is up to the local planning authority to decide whether further publicity and consultation is necessary in the interests of fairness. In deciding what further steps may be required, local planning authorities should consider whether, without re-consultation, any of those who were entitled to be consulted on the application would be deprived of the opportunity to make any representations that they may have wanted to make on the application as amended.”

11. In this case the amended plans reduced the scale of the proposal and the Council decided not to carry out a fresh consultation. This is a decision it is entitled to make. Also, Mr X commented on the amended plans. Therefore, I cannot say that he suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s decision to carry out a new consultation when it received the changed plans.
12. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
13. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Nor can we require the Council to change or withdraw the planning permission which is the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman