Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr Z’s complaint about its handling of a neighbour’s planning applications. The Council met its legal responsibilities by publicising them and bringing them to Mr Z’s attention. It properly considered their impact on his amenities. While it failed to promptly respond to one of his letters, it apologised for the delay. I consider the failure too minor to justify a fault finding.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complains the Council failed to:
1. Notify him of a neighbour’s planning application for consent to extend their property;
2. Properly consider the impact of an application to vary a condition about roof lights on his amenities; and
3. Respond to his correspondence.
2. As a result, he feels ignored, and his privacy affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information provided by Mr Z, including his photographs, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent both Mr Z and the Council a copy of my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr Z lives next door to a property that was extended. He complained he received no notification about a planning application for it and only became aware when he saw a notice attached to a nearby lamppost. When he visited the Council’s offices about it, he was told nobody could go through the application and plans with him. After an assurance from the neighbour that the works would not affect him, Mr Z decided to make no representations to the Council about it.
7. Sometime later, Mr Z became upset when rooflights were inserted into the neighbour’s property which overlooked the rear of his property and garden. He spent £400 on trees to screen his property from them. Due to a breach in building regulations, one of the rooflights was removed but two were inserted to the front of the property which he says face his bedroom window. He says they are about 5-10 feet away. He bought more trees to screen his bedroom window.
8. The Council confirmed there were 2 planning applications for this site:

• Application 1: This was for a single storey rear extension with alterations to the roof. It included roof-lights to the side elevation facing Mr Z’s garden. The planning officer’s report noted their height and internal floor level meant limited opportunity for overlooking. The Council received no representations from Mr Z. The Council explained it investigated an enforcement complaint after it approved application 1. This was about the rooflights installed being larger than approved. The applicant said this was done to comply with building control regulations. The applicant sought approval of these changes by way of application 2.
• Application 2: This was for the variation of a condition set by consent for application 1. The application was amended to include two rooflights to the front elevation. The planning officer’s report noted the separation distance of the property to the road and the fact its front elevation was set behind Mr Z’s rear elevation. It noted the applicant could install roof lights to the front under permitted development rights. The Council received representations from Mr Z.

9. I now examine each of his complaints:

Notification

10. Mr Z states he received no direct notification of application 1. He became aware of it when he saw the site notice the Council erected on a nearby lamppost.
11. The Council provided a copy of a site notice for this application, a map of where it was posted, and a list of properties which were sent notification letters. The list included Mr Z’s address. The Council also provided a template of the notification letter it sent.
12. Mr Z received notification of application 2 which he referred to in the letter of representation he sent about it.

Analysis

13. Local planning authorities must provide notification under Article 15 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. For this type of application, the legal requirement for notification is:

• By site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days; or
• Be serving notice on any adjoining owner or occupier.

14. The Council’s ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ sets out how it will publicise this type of application. It uses a combination of ways to consult, publicise, and provide notification about a planning application. This involves using site notices and letters to neighbouring residents, for example. It sends letters to the most immediate neighbours and provides 23 days from the date of the letter to give responses.
15. While the Council provided evidence in support of its claim of sending a notification letter to Mr Z, he says he did not receive it. I am unable to say why he did not receive it. I found no fault on this complaint because the Council erected a site notice nearby. This met its legal requirements about providing notification. Mr Z saw the notice and became aware of the application.

Amenities

16. Mr Z complains the Council failed to properly take account of the impact of what application 1 and 2 proposed when granting consent. He argued the rooflights on the side of his neighbour’s house facing his rear garden caused overlooking and a loss of privacy. He also argued while application 2 removed the rooflight nearest his house, it increased the impact on his amenities by allowing the neighbour to insert two rooflights on its front elevation towards his property.

Analysis

17. Mr Z’s neighbour’s property is set back from the road his house fronts. In between his neighbour’s house and the road is a garage and high fence. The front elevation of the neighbour’s house is a gable end. It does not directly face Mr Z’s property. One side of the neighbour’s property faces across Mr Z’s garden. The neighbour proposed inserting several rooflight windows in the roof facing his garden.
18. On application 1, the planning officer’s report noted the minimum height of the rooflights to the internal floor level meant limited opportunity for overlooking of neighbouring properties. Given the arrangement of the windows, and the separation distances to neighbouring properties, the report concluded there would be no significant overlooking, loss of light, or sense of enclosure.
19. On application 2, the planning officer’s report noted the two new rooflights would face the road. While they may allow some views towards Mr Z’s property, the report noted rooflights can be installed under permitted development rights. (Schedule 2, Part 1, Class C The Town and Country planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015) Permitted development means certain development does not need planning consent from a local planning authority provided they comply with certain conditions and limits. This is because the law says they already have consent.
20. The report confirmed the applicant could install the rooflights to a front roof slope and this was also a material consideration. They would not result in any significant loss of light or create a sense of enclosure for neighbouring properties.
21. I found no fault on this complaint. I am satisfied the impact of both applications on Mr Z’s amenities was considered when deciding to grant planning consent. This is because both reports show officers considered what impact the proposals would have on neighbours’ amenities. This included looking at overlooking, loss of light, and loss of privacy for example. An important consideration for application 2 was the applicant having permitted development rights to install them anyway.
22. I see no fault in the way officers considered the impact on Mr Z’s property because:

• The 2 rooflights to the front do not directly face his property;
• Mr Z’s photographs of these windows taken from his garden show they are at an oblique angle. A person inside would have to open the window and stand underneath it to look at an angle across his garden. There is also a nearby tree on Mr Z’s land which is at least 50% higher than his own fence which helps screen some of his land from these windows;
• His photographs of these windows taken from his bedroom window also show they are at an oblique angle to this room. Again, a person inside would have to open it and stand underneath it to look at an angle towards his room; and
• Council photographs taken from inside the rooflights show heavy screening from dense tree foliage. They also show most of his garden is screened from mature trees and plants along the boundary.

Correspondence

23. Mr Z complained the Council delayed and failed to respond to correspondence. He gives the example of a letter he sent dated 6 June 2018. He chased the Council about its failure to reply on 1 July. The Council replied 10 days later apologising for not responding sooner. The following day Mr Z again asked why the Council failed to reply to his first letter. The Council acknowledged this letter a couple of days later. Ten days later he again chased the Council about it. The Council wrote to him the following day.

Analysis

24. The Council delayed responding to his initial letter for which it apologised. I consider this was a minor failing by the Council that does not justify a finding of fault. In reaching this conclusion I note the Council responded to his letter after a few weeks and gave him an apology.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr Z’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman