Summary: Mr X complains the Council made an error on his neighbour’s planning application which caused harm to his amenity. We found the Council had incorrectly approved a planning application that it would otherwise have refused. This was fault. It meant that Mr X’s amenity was affected. However, we found the Council had acted to prevent the problem reoccurring, made a genuine apology and offered compensation to Mr X which was in line with our guidance for remedying complaints. As a result, we found the complaint had already been remedied appropriately.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that due to an error by the Council, it wrongly granted approval for his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X complains that as a result, he has suffered harm to his amenity from an overbearing extension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint and the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
5. Mr X and the Council 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

6. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.
7. Mr X lives in a terrace of houses. His neighbour submitted a planning application to build a partly one-storey and partly two-storey rear extension in 2023.
8. Mr X objected to the application because he considered it would be overbearing and affect the light he received.
9. The case officer’s report for the application stated the plans breached the ’45 degree rule’ and ’25 degree rule’ which were used to test the impact of development. He stated, as a result, this would cause a loss of light to Mr X’s property. He found that the proposed development would have an ‘adverse overbearing impact on [Mr X] to the detriment of [his] amenity’.
10. As a result, the case officer decided the application should be refused.
11. When the officer updated the Council’s records, he made an error which meant the Council’s systems produced a letter for the applicant stating the application had been approved. Although the letter stated that planning permission had been granted, the letter also set out a summary of the officer’s concerns, which he had intended to read as the reasons for refusal.
12. The developer queried the situation with the Council, however, this was more than six weeks after the decision had been made. Mr X also queried the situation when it became apparent that his neighbour was intending to start construction.
13. The Council concluded that although the decision notice was sent to Mr X’s neighbour in error, it was valid. The Council considered both revocation of the planning permission and beginning judicial review proceedings against itself in the courts to quash the permission. It decided against these courses of action after considering its position and taking legal advice. We have seen the Council’s advice but we cannot share it as it is legally privileged.
14. However, the Council acknowledged that, given the planning permission was granted in error and it would impact Mr X’s property detrimentally, it should compensate Mr X for the impact. It considered our guidance for remedying such situations and offered Mr X £5,000. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s proposal. He sought a higher sum and action to put things right.
15. The case officer’s report makes clear that the Council considered the development would have an overbearing impact on Mr X’s property due to its size and its proximity to the shared boundary. Mr X’s neighbour’s property is to the east. The Council acknowledges that the approved extension will impact Mr X’s amenity. Mr X would suffer a loss of direct sunlight, particularly early in the morning. However, direct sunlight would not be affected from late morning onwards.
16. In addition to considering the impact of the issue on Mr X, the Council says it took action immediately to advise planning officers what had happened and to instruct them as to how to avoid a reoccurrence of the same issue in future.

What should have happened

17. It is clear that the Council approved Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application by mistake. This was unfortunately due to an admin error which meant the wrong letter was produced and sent to his neighbour. This was fault by the Council.
18. The Council has evidenced that it considered the various options it had to either revoke or judicially review its own decision. After taking advice, it decided these options were not appropriate in this case. This is the Council’s decision to make.
19. When planning applications are determined incorrectly, neighbours often ask for planning permission to be revoked. We will only recommend a council revoke planning permission in very exceptional cases. This is because any injustice can usually be remedied by taking other action at significantly lower cost to the public and planning applicants are generally not responsible for fault by a planning authority.
20. Where it is not possible to take remedial action to lessen the effects of a flawed decision, and it is clear that, but for the fault by the Council, an application would not have been approved in its current form, our guidance on remedying complaints proposes a financial payment to acknowledge the loss of amenity. This is a range between £1,000 to £5,000, depending on the severity of the loss and personal circumstances of the complainant.
21. When the Council determined that it was not appropriate or practicable to rescind the permission it had granted in error, it offered Mr X a sum of £5,000 to compensate him for the impact. This is in accordance with, and the upper end of what we would recommend to remedy this type of complaint. As the Council’s apology and the amount offered to Mr X by the Council is appropriate, I have not made any additional recommendations to remedy the complaint.
22. I note that the Council has also taken steps to ensure the same error is not repeated.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was fault by the Council. It has offered a suitable remedy to the complaint which it is open to Mr X to accept.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman