Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council considered his neighbour’s plans to build a large rear extension. He says the extension impacts on his light and privacy, and its decision is inconsistent because it refused his similar application. There was no fault by the Council. It properly considered the impact on Mr B of the new extension and took into account all the relevant factors.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council did not properly consider the impact on him of his neighbour’s extension. In particular, Mr B says the Council failed to properly assess that this will cause unacceptable loss of light and privacy, and overshadowing of his garden.
2. Mr B points out that the Council refused his application for a six-metre extension made some years earlier.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated how the Council decided the prior notification made by Mr B’s neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the Council’s planning policy. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. The Council confirmed it had no comment. Mr B sent me some further information which I have considered below.

Back to top

What I found

The law

7. The prior approval scheme allows householders to build larger, single-storey extensions. For a terraced house, as in this case, the applicant can build a six-metre rear extension. To do so, the applicant must notify the Council with his plans for the extension. The Council tells the nearest neighbours, who can object if the extension is likely to cause them harm. If there are objections, the Council must assess the harm and decide whether it is acceptable. (The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015).

The Council’s planning policy

8. Local Planning Authorities develop and adopt their own planning policies and guides within the law.
9. At the time of the neighbour’s prior approval application, the Council had just adopted a new planning policy. Its Suburban Design Guide allows extensions of up to 3.5 metres from the original building. Any extension should not cause a harmful loss of light, visual intrusion, or privacy.

What happened

10. Mr B lives in a terraced property. In 2016, Mr B notified the Council that he intended to build a six-metre rear extension. A neighbour objected and the Council assessed the impact on Mr B’s neighbour. The Council decided that Mr B’s extension would be visually intrusive and overbearing, resulting in a loss of light. It refused the application. Mr B had the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Inspector. Mr B did not appeal but instead built a smaller rear extension which extends across the width of his property, and is around 2.5 metres deep.
11. In 2019, Mr B’s neighbour notified the Council that he intended to build a single-storey rear extension of six metres depth, in line with the prior approval process. The Council notified the neighbours and Mr B objected. He said the extension would result in a significant loss of sunlight and privacy. He also said the back of his house and his garden would be overshadowed.
12. The Council’s planning officer visited the site. The officer took into account that Mr B already had a small rear extension. The neighbour’s extension would project a further 3.5 metres from the end of Mr B’s extension and so would accord with the aims of the Council’s planning policy. The planning officer decided that the new extension would not impact unduly on Mr B’s light or privacy and so the Council granted planning permission.
13. Mr B complained to the Council and the Ombudsman. I asked the Council to further explain how it had assessed the impact of the new extension on Mr B. The Council explained it took into account that the gardens are long and narrow, and south-east facing so that the impact on sunlight would not be enough to warrant refusing the application. The new extension extends only 3.5 metres beyond Mr B’s own extension and so is within the limits of the Council’s policy which is designed to minimise loss of light.
14. The Council considered the impact on Mr B’s privacy but found that the new extension would not overlook his house, as the window is at the rear with no side windows. It would look into the rear of Mr B’s garden but not his house, and the Council considered this acceptable and within the aims of its planning policy.
15. In response to a draft of this statement, Mr B has sent me photographs and also pointed out that the Council’s decision to approve this extension is inconsistent with its decision to refuse his. Mr B says the Council found that his extension would impact too much on his neighbour’s daylight and be visually intrusive. The photographs show that his neighbour’s extension has rear windows and casts a shadow over part of his garden.
16. The Council has explained to Mr B that it assessed his application differently because there were no neighbouring extensions at that time and so it had to take into account the impact of the whole depth of the extension.

Was there fault by the Council causing Mr B an injustice?

17. There was no fault by the Council. It followed the procedure set out by law when it notified Mr B of his neighbour’s plans. When he objected, the Council properly assessed the impact on him. There is no doubt that the extension has some impact on Mr B, but the Council visited the site and properly applied its own policy and reached a decision based on its observations. There is no basis for me to question the merits of the Council’s decision.
18. The Council has explained why it took a different approach to Mr B’s prior notification. I have set out below why I have not investigated the Council’s decision to refuse his application.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

20. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
21. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:
• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.
22. I have not investigated whether the Council was right to refuse Mr B’s original application for a six-metre extension, because he had the right to appeal this to the Planning Inspector and there was no reason why he could not use that right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman