Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to consult him on his neighbour’s planning application, failed to consider the impact it would have on his solar panels and delayed responding to his communications. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with the planning application. The Council delayed responding to an email and complaint. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to consult him on his neighbour’s planning application;
• failed to properly consider the impact the development would have on his solar panels; and
• delayed responding to his communications.
2. Mr B says fault by the Council means his solar panels are less effective which will have an environmental impact and increase his monthly electricity bills.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. The Council's statement of community involvement sets out the consultation requirements for planning applications. This says the Council may carry out consultation on planning applications by:
• placing a site notice as near as possible to the application site;
• advising in writing occupiers of properties which share a boundary with the application site;
• advertising applications in local newspapers/publications.
9. The Council’s complaints procedure (the procedure) has two stages. At the first stage the complaint is handled by the service complained of. The procedure says the person complaining can talk to the officer again if they are unhappy with parts of the reply. The procedure says if the person complaining is still unhappy they can ask for the complaint to go to stage two, where it is looked at by the customer feedback team. The procedure says the Council aims to respond to complaints within 20 working days at the second stage although if the issue is complex the Council may take longer and will keep the person complaining informed.

What happened

10. Mr B lives next to a site which was subject to a planning application for an extension. Mr B has solar panels on his roof. Mr B objected to the first application, which the Council refused. Mr B says he was not consulted on the second application. However, the Council’s records show a neighbour consultation letter was sent to Mr B. The Council approved the planning application.
11. Mr B contacted the Council to raise concerns about his neighbour beginning the development as he was unaware of the planning permission granted. The Council explained it had sent neighbour notification letters before granting planning permission and had considered how the development would impact on Mr B’s solar panels. Mr B wrote to the Council with concerns on 6 July 2021. As he had not received a response he chased the Council on 29 September. The Council responded on 5 October and apologised for the delay.
12. Mr B put in a complaint on 7 November 2021. The Head of Planning at the Council responded to the complaint on 19 November 2021. The Council did not uphold the complaint and told Mr B if he was not happy with the response he could contact the customer feedback team to ask for his complaint go to stage two. Mr B contacted the Head of Planning, copying in the customer feedback team, on 28 November as he was dissatisfied with the response. As Mr B had not received a reply he chased the Council on 27 January 2022. The Council responded to the complaint at stage two on 9 March.

Analysis

13. Mr B says the Council failed to consult him on his neighbour’s planning application in June 2020. Mr B says this is despite the fact the Council consulted him on an earlier application which it refused. The Council has provided a copy of a screen print showing it consulted Mr B, along with other neighbours, on 23 June and 16 July. I appreciate Mr B says he did not receive those letters. However, as the Council has a record of the letters being issued I could not say the Council failed to consult him. The Council cannot be held responsible for any failure by Royal Mail to deliver letters.
14. Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider the impact the development would have on his solar panels when it approved the application. Mr B says the planning officer did not visit the site and did not take advice from somebody with experience in how solar panels work. Mr B says the Council failed to appreciate the development would put part of his solar panels in shadow until around 10am and when any single panel is shaded it reduces the effectiveness of the entire installation. Mr B says this will therefore have an impact both on the environment and on his bills.
15. I have considered the report produced for the planning application. The Council acknowledges in that report the planning officer did not visit the site. That is because when the application was under consideration COVID-19 lockdown rules applied. The report records that instead the planning officer considered the plans provided and aerial imagery of the site. That included a visual of Mr B’s solar panels.
16. I understand Mr B’s concerns about the planning officer not visiting the site. However, there is no requirement for planning officers to carry out a site visit when considering a planning application. At the point at which this application was under consideration the Council was also affected by COVID-19 lockdown rules which affected officer’s ability to visit. I am satisfied the Council had in place a procedure at the time which allowed it to defer applications for consideration if it did not consider a proper assessment could be undertaken without a site visit. In this case the report for the application is clear the Council did not consider deferral necessary in this case because it was satisfied the plans provided by the applicant and aerial imagery of the site gave the planning officer sufficient information about the proposed development to enable a proper assessment to be made. That is a matter of judgement and as there is no requirement for the planning officer to carry out a site visit there are no grounds on which the Ombudsman could criticise the Council in relation to that point.
17. Nevertheless, the Council has a responsibility to consider how a development will impact on neighbouring properties. I am satisfied the Council did that in this case in terms of the impact the development would have on Mr B’s solar panels. The report records the officer’s view that given the existing rear dormers and orientation of the site the Council did not consider the impact on the solar panels so significant in terms of overshadowing to warrant refusal of the application. Given the impact on the solar panels was specifically addressed in the report I cannot say the Council failed to consider the impact the development would have. As I said in paragraph 4, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of a decision reached without fault. I have found no evidence of fault here.
18. In reaching that view I note Mr B’s comments about part of his solar panels being in shade until 10am, which affects the overall effectiveness of the solar panels. I am satisfied though, based on the description in the report, the planning officer recognised there would be an impact on Mr B’s solar panels. That is also something the Council has accepted in its correspondence with Mr B following the grant of planning permission. The key point here is that the report records the Council did not consider that impact to be so significant to warrant refusal of the application. So, I am satisfied the Council did not grant planning permission on the basis that it believed there would be no impact on Mr B’s solar panels. Rather, I am satisfied the Council did not consider the impact it would have to be so significant as to warrant refusal of the application. Given Mr B accepts his solar panels are only in shade until 10am I am satisfied the Council has reached a decision here which it is entitled to reach. That is not to say the development will not impact on Mr B’s solar panels - clearly it will. However, the Council’s role is to decide whether that impact is so significant as to warrant refusal of the application. I am satisfied the report, and subsequent correspondence with Mr B, has made clear the Council’s view that the impact, while unacceptable to Mr B, is acceptable in planning terms. That is a decision the Council is entitled to reach and it is not one I could criticise.
19. I am aware Mr B would have preferred the Council to seek advice from experts in solar panels to properly understand the impact the development would have. However, there is no requirement for the Council to have done that. Officers are expected to assess the material planning considerations when considering any planning application. I am satisfied they have properly considered the impact on Mr B’s solar panels when granting planning permission. I say that because officers have taken into account the fact the development will take place to the east of Mr B’s property, which reduces the impact on the solar panels to a short period in the morning.
20. Mr B says the Council delayed responding to his communications. The Council delayed responding to Mr B’s email of 6 July 2021. There is no evidence of the Council responding to that email until October 2021, after Mr B chased the Council for a response. I am satisfied the Council apologised for the delay. I consider that a reasonable outcome for this part of the complaint.
21. The Council also accepts there was a delay responding to the stage two complaint. The Council says the delay occurred because Mr B’s email was directed to the Head of Planning rather than the customer feedback team. However, the evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B copied his email of 28 November to the customer feedback team. I am concerned to note that despite this the Council failed to respond to the complaint until Mr B chased it in January 2022. Failure to respond to the complaint within the Council’s publicised timescales is fault. I consider an apology satisfactory remedy for that, along with a reminder to officers in the customer feedback team that when a complainant expresses dissatisfaction with a stage one complaint response the case should be considered for escalation to stage two and the complainant advised about what is happening with the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Mr B for delays dealing with his correspondence and complaint.
23. Within two months of my decision the Council should send a reminder to officers in the customer feedback team about how to deal with correspondence from those who have received a stage one complaint response to ensure cases are escalated to stage two, where appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mr B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman