Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled planning matters relating to neighbouring properties on his street. We have not found the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
1. The Council should not have approved planning permission to convert a loft space in his neighbour’s property in 2021. Mr X said the Council was misled by the applicant as the existing and proposed plans exaggerated the roof pitch and height. Mr X said this caused his neighbour to increase the roof pitch and height of their property which has negatively impacted his amenity.
2. The Council should not have approved another planning application for a similar extension at another neighbouring property.
3. The Council did not allow him to increase his own roof size when he applied for planning permission in 2015.
4. The Council has not properly considered whether there was a breach of planning permission, approved in 2021, concerning his neighbour’s roof height and pitch and has now refused to consider this further. Mr X said his neighbour increased their roof height and pitch and instead of converting the existing loft, put a new roof structure on the building.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated complaints a) and b) as too much time has passed since Mr X became aware about these issues. For complaint a) the Council approved planning permission in 2021. For complaint b) the Council approved planning permission in February 2023. Mr X did not complain to us until May 2024. I can see no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained to us about these matters sooner.
7. I have also not investigated complaint c) as Mr X received a decision from the Council in 2015. I am satisfied too much time has passed and see no good reasons to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning permission

10. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
11. Planning considerations include things like:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

12. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

13. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Decision making and material considerations

14. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
15. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
16. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
17. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations.
18. General planning policies may pull in different directions (eg in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities).
19. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Enforcement

20. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
21. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
22. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
23. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework September 2023, paragraph 60)

What happened

24. There has been extensive correspondence between Mr X and the Council. In this section of the statement I summarise key events but I do not refer to every single contact and communication. I have also referred to events relating to complaints a) and b) above, but only for context.
25. In early 2021, Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a single story side extension and to convert the loft space into a habitable space, including roof alternations. The plans showed the height of the roof was to remain the same. Mr X objected to the proposals.
26. The Council approved planning permission in mid-2021 at its Planning Committee. The Committee report showed the Planning Committee considered the impact of the development on Mr X’s property. While the Committee did consider Mr X would suffer some overshadowing the impact of this would not be materially harmful.
27. In October 2021, Mr X raised an enforcement complaint with the Council about the height and pitch of his neighbour’s roof. Mr X said the roof was not built in line with the approved plans and had been raised. Mr X sent the Council pictures, comparisons of roof angles and raft sizes to support his position. The Council opened an enforcement investigation and visited the site on two occasions. During these visits to the Council measured the roof height using tape and laser measures and found the height was below the height in the approved plans. The roof structure had not been built so the Council added measurements to include the roof tiles. The Council decided there was no breach of planning control in relation to the roof height. The Council did find a breach of planning control in relation to the height of the sloped roof above Mr X’s neighbour’s entrance porch. The Council told the neighbour to submit a retrospective planning application to address this breach.
28. In March 2022, Mr X reported further breaches at his neighbour’s property with the height and pitch of the roof. The Council opened another enforcement case and visited the site. Notes from the case showed the Council considered the roof height had not changed since its last visit to the site and there was no breach of planning relating to the roof heigh and pitch.
29. In May 2022 Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. Mr X said his neighbour increased the height of their roof. He sent the Council pictures which he said supported his view.
30. In July 2022, another resident on Mr X’s street applied for planning permission. This involved raising their roof and convert this into habitable space. Mr X raised objections to this application.
31. In August 2022, Mr X sent the Council further evidence and said his neighbour had raised their roof height and pitch. Mr X said he believed the neighbour exaggerated their roof height and pitch in the planning documents as their original roof height and pitch was bigger than other properties who had made planning applications.
32. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in October 2022. The Council said it was satisfied with how it approved his neighbour’s planning application. The Council said it considered his comments as part of this process and there was no requirement to visit his property. The Council said the Planning Committee considered the application and it was up to Committee members to decide what aspects to debate but it was satisfied it followed the correct process.
33. In early 2023, the Council approved planning permission for the other resident to convert their loft into habitable space.
34. Mr X raised further concerns to the Council in March 2023 with the help of a Councillor. He was unhappy the Council decided to approve planning permission for the other resident when he still had concerns about breaches of planning permission concerning his neighbour’s property. The Council decided to raise this as a complaint at stage two of its process.
35. In March 2023, Mr X reported further breaches at his neighbour’s property with the height of the roof. The Council decided to take no further action as it had considered the roof height of Mr X’s neighbour’s property on two previous occasions and found no breach of planning control.
36. The Council provided its stage two response in late April 2023. The Council said:
• It visited his neighbour’s property on several occasions to assess whether there was a breach of planning permission in relation to the height of the roof. The Council said while roof tiles were not present, its measurements and notes took account of an additional increase once tiles were on the roof. The Council said it was satisfied the development did not breach the approved plans.
• The plans showed the neighbour’s roof was always going to be bulkier but it was satisfied this was not to a degree which would cause Mr X’s property harm.
• It considered the height of his neighbours roof again and found no breach of planning permission. The Council said the height of the neighbour’s roof was not above the height recorded in the planning documents.
• It disagreed that lack of enforcement at his neighbour’s property meant it approved another planning application. The Council explained these applications were different and the newer application did ask to increase roof height.
37. Mr X responded to the Council in late April 2023 after receiving his stage two response. Mr X raised concerns about how the Planning Committee decided the original planning application. He said there were errors in the original documents showing the roof height and if these were known planning would not have been approved. Mr X said he had provided the Council with evidence of this and it had not addressed this. Mr X said part of the application, namely the rear hip gable extension was allowed under permitted development and the Planning Committee believed the roof ridge would remain the same when granting planning permission. As the height of the roof increased this would no longer fall under permitted development so should not have been approved.
38. In May 2023, the Council’s head of planning visited the site with a Councillor. Following this visit the head of planning emailed Mr X and said they believed the property was built in accordance with the approved plans, however the plans either did not show the correct height of the original roof or the property had been built higher than others in the area. The Council said even if it had been aware of this it considered it would not have refused permission.
39. In August 2023, the Council’s head of planning provided a further response to Mr X. The Council said it reviewed Mr X’s planning application plans to satisfy itself on the height of his property and found the height of Mr X’s property and the height of his neighbour’s was the same. The Council said any visual height differences were therefore as a result of differing ground levels.
40. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

41. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
42. Mr X has raised concerns over several years about his neighbour’s roof height and pitch breaching planning permission and the Council has decided not to investigate this further. During this time the Council has opened several enforcement investigations. It has measured the height of the roof several times, compared this to the height recorded on the approved plans and found no breach of planning. While Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view I am satisfied there has been no fault in how it investigated his concerns.
43. In May 2023, the Council told Mr X there appeared to be a difference in height between his property and his neighbour’s and suggested this could have been due to the original plans not showing the correct roof height. The Council then changed its view after further considering whether there was a possible breach of planning permission from the roof height. This involved looking at planning documents showing Mr X’s roof height and comparing this to the development. The Council decided if there were any visual differences in height this must be due to differing ground levels. While this may have appeared inconsistent to Mr X I do not consider this amounts to fault. The Council has explained why it considered there to be no breach of planning permission and the steps it took to come to this view.
44. Mr X has provided the Council with documents which he says show the roof height and pitch has increased. However the Council does not have the exact measurements of the original roof height, so even if it were to investigate this further it would not be able to compare the building, as built, to the original roof height.
45. The Council has said after visiting the site several times it considered the building as built was acceptable in planning terms. Even if the Council was to find a breach of planning it would not take any enforcement action against Mr X’s neighbour.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman