Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his objections to his neighbour’s development, how it applied its own planning guidance, and its consideration of the development’s planning impacts on his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process which would have affected the planning outcome to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a property whose owner received planning permission for a development which included a side and rear extension. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to properly handle his objections to the development;
2. failed to apply its own planning design guidance and properly consider how the development would impact his property.
2. Mr X says the development causes overlooking to his property from a new balcony. He says the rear window of his living room will be severely impacted by the extension. Mr X wants:
• the development amended to set back the balustrade from the balcony edge, to prevent views towards his property;
• the Council to accept it did not follow the planning guidance and approved the plans in error;
• the Council to assure him the same errors will not happen again, that the guidance will be followed in future and that the approved development will not set a precedent;
• consideration of compensation from the Council for screening on his property to improve the outlook from the affected living room window.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue 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))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Mr X says the Council mishandled his planning objections. Officers considered his objections within the usual planning process. They reflected Mr X’s concerns in the planning report, summarising them and responding to them when assessing the impact of the development on his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s objections here to warrant an investigation.
8. The planning officer’s report considered Mr X’s concerns about the overlooking to his property from users of the development’s new balcony. The officer determined the balcony would be contained within the roof overhang, above and to the side closest to Mr X’s property. They considered the outlook given by the balcony would be down the garden of the host property, an outlook similar to the host property’s existing rear bedroom window. The officer decided the level of planning impact of the balcony on Mr X’s property would not justify refusing the permission.
9. Mr X says the extension breaches the ’45-degree’ guidance in relation to his living room window. This is guidance to planning authorities when considering the impact of new developments on windows in nearby existing properties. Horizontal and vertical measurements determine whether the new development will cause loss of light to existing properties’ windows. The Council’s planning officer report does not mention the ’45-degree’ issue for Mr X’s living room’s rear window. But its officer notes the same room is also served by another window on the opposite aspect. A development which affects the light or outlook of one window of a dual aspect room would be less likely to be refused than one which affects a room with only one window, as it would have less impact on the light available overall to a room with more than one window. The officer report also notes the side wall of the extension would be barely visible above an existing boundary fence and that the extension roof slopes away from Mr X’s property. The officer also identifies a five‑metre separation distance between the extension and Mr X’s property, with minimal immediate views of the side of the extension from within Mr X’s living room. The officer decided that on balance the extension would not be so detrimental to the amenity of Mr X’s property to not comply with its planning guidance, and that refusal of the application would not be warranted.
10. The report’s consideration and decision would have been clearer if the officer had referred to the 45-degree guidance. But the Council considered the material planning impact issues raised by Mr X’s objections to the extension and balcony. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision‑making process and its assessment of planning harm which would have affected the outcome here to justify us investigating. We realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision as he considers the impact of the development on his property means it does not comply with the local planning guidance. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process which would have affected the outcome to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman