A resident received an apology from Uttlesford District Council after a three year delay to a planning decision left "blinding" light shining into her home.

The woman, referred to by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman as "Dr B", complained her neighbour had constructed flood lights and two menages, which are areas for riding horses, without planning permission.

Uttlesford District Council was found at fault by the Ombudsman for the delay in deciding the planning application for the flood lights.

Fault was also found for not properly considering whether the maneges amounted to development and for not concluding an enforcement investigation into the matter.

According to a report, the council has apologised to Dr B, paid her £150, and agreed to review its decision and carry out a further site visit.

A council spokesperson said: "The council cooperated fully with the LGO in its investigation, which concerned a case that first arose before the Covid pandemic and was subject to delays, not least as a result of the pandemic.

"The matter is now resolved and the council has made a donation to a local hospice in the complainant’s name by way of compensation."

The council decided in 2018 the menages could be considered ancillary development and did not need planning permission, however the lights did, the report says.

READ MORE

Dr B objected to the planning application for the lights in 2019, saying they shone directly into her upstairs windows and into her garden and were blinding. But the application was not decided until three years later, in November 2021.

The council eventually approved the lights, but restricted their hours of use and luminance levels, and required a shield be constructed.

According to the report, the council provided reasons for an initial delay, including waiting for ecological surveys and environmental health involvement.

But there is a period of around two years, between November 2019 and November 2022, in which nothing appears to have happened on the case.

Dr B also provided photographs of the works for the second manege, which included heavy machinery and ground excavation of almost the entire garden, the report says.

The investigator said they would have expected to see a detailed and clear explanation for why this did not fit the definition of development.

The Ombudsman also found fault with the council’s enforcement investigation into the floodlights, which showed no evidence it had checked or confirmed the lights were in line with conditions, or that it communicated an outcome to Dr B.

The Ombudsman said in the report it could not make a decision regarding whether the lights significantly harmed Dr B’s amenity.