Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the proposal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss X, complains the Council failed to consider and apply all relevant parts of its planning policies when it approved her neighbour’s planning application. She says the Council:
• failed to ensure a daylight/sunlight report was presented
• failed to assess the impact of loss of light and outlook to her property; and
• failed to assess the impact from the character, form, materials, colour and detailing of the proposed extension.
2. Miss X wants the Council to:
• revoke the planning permission
• require an objective daylight assessment
• require a reduction in the width and depth of the proposed extension
• review its website and guidance and make it less biased towards applications
• remove out of date policies and guidance from the website; and
• apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Examples of planning considerations include:
• access to the highway
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. The following are not examples of planning considerations:
• views from a property
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable, and reasonable in all other regards.
10. Details of how councils consider applications are usually contained in the planning officer reports. 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. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration
• 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;
• 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

11. Miss X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to demolish their detached garage and build a part single, part two storey extension with new windows and a roof light. This application followed a previous similar application which the Council had refused.
12. Miss X and others objected to the application on the following grounds:
• Loss of light
• Impact on outlook, design, and character
• Loss of privacy
• Carbon and energy
• Climate change; and
• Impact on trees
13. The Planning Officer visited the site and prepared a report on the scheme. This includes:
• A description of the proposal and the site
• A summary of the objections received
• Details of relevant planning policy and guidance
• The Planning Officers consideration of the application, including the impact on:
1. loss of privacy
2. loss of light, outlook, and a sense of enclosure
3. trees and landscaping
4. the objections received to the proposal; and
5. the reasons for refusing the previous application.
14. The specific impact on the light to Miss X’s home is detailed in the report. The Officer recognises the side extension will be closer to Miss X’s home than the existing building. However, their professional opinion is that as it will be almost five metres from Miss X’s home any loss of light will be acceptable.
15. The Planning Officer considered the reduction in the size of the proposed extension overcame the reasons for refusing the previous application. They also considered the effect on the character of the street scene and the neighbouring properties was acceptable.
16. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council’s assessment of the application. However, it is clear the Planning Officer visited the site and considered the objections received. The report explains why the Officer is satisfied the application overcomes the objections and meets the requirements of the relevant policies.
17. Miss X complains the Council refused to obtain a daylight report or visit her home. I cannot find fault as there is no requirement for the Council to do so. I also note Miss X lives to the south of the application site, reinforcing the Council’s conclusion about the effect of the proposed development on light to her home.
18. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We cannot overturn a planning decision or achieve what Miss X wants in this case.
19. I have decided not to investigate this complaint because the Planning Officer’s report shows the main planning considerations were looked at. It shows the Council understood the proposed scheme and the location of Miss X’s home in relation to the application site. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council. However, I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application before coming to a decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it processed her neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman