The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and did not visit the site before granting planning permission. Mr X says the new extension is too close to the primary entrance of his property and will cause a significant loss of light.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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 relate to 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 the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
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.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report said the proposal would not cause harmful overshadowing or a significant loss of light. The case officer also said a similar extension could be built without applying for planning permission using permitted development rights.
Mr X says the Council failed to erect a site notice and did not visit the site before granting planning permission. However, the Council did publicise the application in line with its Statement for Community Involvement and wrote to the residents of the neighbouring properties. Councils are also not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding a planning application. Officers will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using ariel photographs and other tools. The Council has explained how it was able to assess the application without visiting the site. Mr X has also complained the extension does not comply with the 45 degree rule. But the Council has explained why this would not apply to a side extension. I am also satisfied it has properly assessed the impact on loss of light to Mr X’s home and the fact a similar extension could be erected without the need for planning permission was a valid fallback position the Council had to take into account.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment 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.
Mr X says the development will breach the Right to Light Act. But the Right to Light Act is not a planning consideration and will instead be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman