Summary: The Council failed to properly consider the impact on Mrs B’s privacy when it granted planning permission for a development next to her home. It also delayed in investigating her complaint about the external lighting of the building. The Council has agreed my recommendations to remedy Mrs B’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council:
• Failed to consider the impact on her privacy in her home and garden when it approved the conversion of a building from a chapel to flats in 2018, and when it approved the design of the windows in 2020.
• Failed to notify her of these applications so that she did not know about the new glazing until the work was underway.
• Failed to take action when she reported that the exterior lighting of the building interfered with her enjoyment of her home.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s failings have harmed her privacy. She now feels like she cannot use her garden as new residents have clear views from the first floor of the converted chapel.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mrs B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below, as well as the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I considered their comments before issuing a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and policy

6. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use).
7. Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land.
8. Councils are required to publicise planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development and the council’s own policies. In all cases the application must be published on the council’s website. In this case, there was also a requirement to erect a site notice, but there was no requirement to notify neighbours to the development.

What happened

9. Mrs B lives next to a disused chapel. Prior to its redevelopment the chapel was used as a sports club. In 2018, the Council granted planning permission to redevelop the chapel into flats. This included installing an internal floor to make a first floor. There would be no alterations to the footprint of the building. The side of the chapel faces Mrs B’s garden and is close to the boundary. This side has tall windows that overlook Mrs B’s garden.
10. The Council erected a site notice and publicised the planning application on its website. It’s planning officer’s report says that the existing windows would be replaced. There would be no additional windows installed and therefore the privacy of neighbouring residents would be maintained. It also considered the changed use of the chapel. It concluded that this is compatible with the surrounding residential properties, and that the converted chapel would have to meet building regulations on sound insulation.
11. The Council granted planning permission subject to conditions. These included that the design and materials of the windows be approved by the Council. In 2020, the Council approved clear glazed windows. These tall windows would allow views into Mrs B’s garden from both the ground and first floors.
12. Work started in 2021 and Mrs B complained to the Council. She said the Council had not notified her of the development; the new residents would severely harm the privacy of her garden particularly from the first floor, and the developer had blocked access to her garden and had not entered into a party wall agreement.
13. The Council told Mrs B that the issues of obstruction and the party wall were private matters between her and the developer and it could not get involved.
14. The Council told Mrs B that it had not considered the impact of the new internal floor of the chapel which gives the new first floor residents a view into her garden, either when it granted permission in 2018, or when it discharged the planning condition in 2020. It said that had it considered this it would have likely insisted that these windows have frosted glass. However, it could not reverse the planning permission or insist now that the developer install frosted glass. Instead the Council wrote to the new residents to explain the situation and asked them if they would voluntarily install blinds or frosted film in the windows.
15. In correspondence with the Council around July 2022, Mrs B also told it that the building now had external lights that shine brightly into her house. I cannot see the Council responded to Mrs B about the lighting. However, in response to my investigation it has explained that it does not have planning control over the lighting and it has referred the matter to its environmental health team.

Was there fault by the Council causing Mrs B injustice?

16. The Council has acknowledged that it did not consider the impact of first floor windows on Mrs B’s privacy. This was fault. It means the Council missed the opportunity to require frosted glazing or some other mitigation. The Council is correct that it cannot reverse the planning permission or require frosted glass now. It is clear that the Council’s shortcomings have harmed Mrs B’s privacy and allowed views into her garden. Mrs B has sent me photographs which show she can see, at an angle, into the kitchen of one of the new flats from a bedroom in her house, which leads her to worry that the occupiers might be able to see into her house.
17. The planning permission included a condition that the developer must submit details of the replacement windows to the Council for its approval. The Council has acknowledged that it did not consider the impact on Mrs B’s privacy when it approved the clear glazing in 2020. This is further fault.
18. There was no fault in how the Council publicised the application. There was no requirement for it to notify neighbours of this. It was also not fault when the Council told Mrs B that the party wall and obstruction of her garden access were private matters between her and the developer, and it could not get involved.
19. The Council should have explained that it could not control the external lighting through the planning system. It should have referred the matter to its Environmental Health service sooner, so it could consider whether it could take action here. It should progress this investigation without delay and keep Mrs B informed of its decisions. If when the Council concludes its investigation, Mrs B considers there was fault in its decision making, she can bring a new complaint about this to the Council and then the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mrs B for its shortcomings;
• Pay Mrs B a symbolic payment of £1,000 in recognition of the loss of privacy;
• Pay Mrs B £200 in recognition of the time and trouble it put her to in having to pursue these matters;
• Contact Mrs B to explain how it intends to proceed with its investigation of the external lighting; and
• Share this decision with relevant staff.
21. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. There was fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman