Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact on her amenity when it granted planning permission at a neighbouring property. We find fault with the Council for failing to evidence its decision making. We also found some fault in its complaint handling. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice to Mrs B.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains on behalf of Mrs B. He complains about the Council’s decision to allow a development next to Mrs B’s property.
2. Mr C says the Council failed to properly consider the impact on Mrs B’s amenity and failed to take Mrs B’s objections into account.
3. He says the development has an unacceptable impact on Mrs B’s amenity because it caused loss of light in her kitchen and dining area. This caused Mrs B distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information Mr C provided. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response a long with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr C, Mrs B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered all the comments I received before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

9. The law says councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise.
10. Planning considerations include things like the impact on amenities, such as loss of privacy and light.
11. Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land. Conditions should only be applied where they are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms.

What happened

12. In March 2018 Mrs B’s neighbour applied for planning permission to develop the property next to Mrs B.
13. There were several objections to the development.
14. The Council granted planning permission in May 2018. The officer said the addition of dwellings was “considered to demonstrably outweigh the impact upon neighbouring residential amenity”.
15. Mrs B was unhappy with the Council’s decision. She sought advice and complained to the Council through a representative, Mr C, in November 2020.
16. The Council responded at stage one and two of its complaint process. It said:

“… the case officers report included an assessment of the daylight and sunlight report together with considerations of objections and plans/drawings setting out the reasons for a recommendation”.

17. Mrs B remained unhappy with the response and Mr C complained to the Ombudsman on her behalf.

My findings

18. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and where we find fault, to determine whether a significant injustice was caused to the individual complainant.
19. The case officer’s report does not refer to the development’s impact on Mrs B’s ground floor kitchen window or door. It sets out the reasons for the Council’s decision in other ways, but it cannot be relied upon to provide evidence of the decision making and consideration on this point.
20. The Council’s responses to us and Mrs B sought to justify its decision by saying the rationale for its decision was set out in the case officer’s report. But there is no evidence in the report or any site visit notes/ photographs that we can rely on to demonstrate the Council considered the development’s impact on Mrs B’s kitchen.
21. We would expect to see evidence of how it considered this point in its decision making. This is fault.
22. I do not think this caused Mrs B a significant injustice. I do not think the outcome would have been different if the fault had not occurred.
23. Mrs B’s complaint had been through the Council’s complaints procedure before she complained to the Ombudsman. The Council should have responded to Mrs B’s specific questions and concerns during its handling of her complaint. This could have resolved the issue at an earlier stage and provided clarity to Mrs B about the way the Council reached its decision.
24. There were delays in the Council’s complaint handling and it failed to respond to the points Mrs B raised. This is fault. It caused Mrs B an injustice because she was put to the additional time and trouble of bringing her complaint to us.
25. In response to our investigation the Council accepted the findings in relation to the complaint handling and agreed to the recommendations we made to remedy the injustice it caused Mrs B.
26. The Council does not agree with our finding of fault in the way it considered and recorded its decision making about the impact of the development on Mrs B’s kitchen window and door. It said it felt we were looking for “an onerous level of detail in the planning officers report”. I disagree with the Council because it failed to provide any evidence of its consideration on this point.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Within one month of my final decision the Council agrees to:
• Apologise to Mrs B.
• Pay Mrs B £200 in recognition of her time and trouble.
28. The Council should provide the Ombudsman it has completed the agreed actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman