The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because any fault by the Council did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly assessed his neighbour’s planning application and approved their proposed development based on inaccurate calculations. He also believes the Council failed to consider the impact of the development on light to his property and sought to justify the decision retrospectively based on a flawed argument concerning the applicant’s ‘permitted development’ rights.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council accepts it wrongly calculated the increase in volume of Mr X’s neighbour’s proposed development. However it says the neighbour could have increased the volume of their property even more, resulting in a greater impact on Mr X’s property than the development it approved, without the need for planning permission. Mr X disputes the Council’s calculations and its application of their various permitted development rights and says the development should have been smaller.
But regardless of the claimed inaccuracies and the dispute over the application of the applicant’s permitted development rights the Council considers the size and impact of the development acceptable. Mr X’s primary concerns relate to loss of light and the Council has properly considered this issue with reference to the results of a daylight/sunlight survey. The main impact on light to Mr X’s property results from an increase in the roof (ridge) height and the total volume of the extensions proposed is not directly relevant to this. The appropriateness of the development’s volume is a matter of principle but it does not directly affect Mr X as it concerns an internal measurement.
We cannot therefore say the development affects him more than it should, or that the Council’s decision caused him significant injustice for which we should recommend a remedy. And we would not in any event recommend the Council revokes or amends the planning permission issued to Mr X’s neighbour.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not say any fault by the Council wrongly affected its decision or that it caused Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman