Council criticised over riverside balcony

Archived press release

Date Published: 14/08/09

A couple’s living room was overlooked because of errors by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets over a planning application for a new riverside balcony.

A couple’s living room was overlooked because of errors by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets over a planning application for a new riverside balcony, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. In his report, issued today (14 August 2009) he says “I do not believe that a proper assessment of the loss of amenity by overlooking was carried out…” and notes that “… a possible solution was available. The Council could have negotiated with the applicant to shorten the proposed balcony so that its end was further from the complainants’ window.”

‘Mr and Mrs Page’ (not their real names for legal reasons) complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development at a property next to their home, beside the River Thames.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Council initially registered the application at the wrong address, and that all subsequent documentation referred to this incorrect address. The Council says it sent out notification letters to neighbours, but none were received by those who should have. But even if they had been sent, they referred to the wrong development address and so neighbours would not have been able to make a proper judgement on whether they would be affected by the proposal.

The Council says that it carried out a site inspection. But the Ombudsman is satisfied from the evidence that either no site visit was made or that, if it was, it failed to identify the proximity of Mr and Mrs Page’s living room window to the proposed balcony.

The Ombudsman finds that the case officer’s report on the application was inadequate, as it failed to include much essential information.

The Council says that it believes the new balcony does not result in an unacceptable level of overlooking in “planning terms” and that a neighbour has no right to privacy or a view. The Ombudsman says: “I do not accept that a neighbour has no right to privacy,” and points out that the Council refused a similar application for balconies a few doors away from the one in this case for that very reason – it contravened its policy, causing loss of privacy to the neighbouring property.

As a result of the Council’s maladministration, Mr and Mrs Page suffered injustice through loss of amenity by overlooking and in the loss of value to their home. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council pays Mr and Mrs Page:

• £1,000 to reflect the disappointment they felt that their amenity had not been properly considered and to assist them in taking measures to mitigate their loss of amenity;
• £300 for their time and trouble in pursuing the complaint; and
• a sum equivalent to loss of value of their property to be determined by comparing the value of their property now with that if consent had been allowed for a balcony that did not allow overlooking of their living accommodation.

In addition the Ombudsman recommends that the Council takes the following steps to avoid further incidents:

• ensure that it has procedures which require the findings of a case officer’s site visit to be fully recorded; and 
• ensure that a case officer’s report on an application accurately describes the planning history of the site, the policies relevant to the application and the material planning matters which were considered in reaching the officer’s recommendation and the planning decision.
   

Report ref 08 002 912