Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on a planning application and its poor complaint handling, causing him loss of light, loss of privacy and distress. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on a planning application and its poor complaint handling. He says he will suffer loss of light and privacy and the Council’s actions have caused him stress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered any comments provided.

Back to top

What I found

Law; planning process

6. A council must decide on a planning application in line with the local development plan, unless there are material considerations that suggest otherwise. Material considerations include the impact on amenities, such as loss of privacy and loss of light. A council must be able to show that it has considered material planning considerations.
7. A council will not consider any disputes over private matters, such as land ownership or rights to light.

Council policy

8. The Council’s Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (“SPD”) 2005 and 2019, both explain the Council will apply the 45 degree code to assess the lighting implications of a new development. However, both documents say (at paragraphs 4.4.8 and 3.61 respectively) that the code does not apply to windows at the side of an affected property.

What happened

9. Mr X’s neighbour, Mr Y, applied for planning permission for a rear extension and loft conversion.
10. I note the drawings attached to the planning application show Mr Y has a conservatory at the rear of his property, next to Mr X’s property. The drawings do not show any windows to the affected side of Mr X’s property. The proposal involved removing the conservatory to accommodate the rear extension.
11. Mr X objected to the proposal. He explained the main window to his office was at the side of his property. It received light through the windows of Mr Y’s conservatory, however the proposal would replace these windows with brickwork. He said the proposal was contrary to the 45 degree code of practice. Mr X also complained the dormer windows would cause loss of privacy to his garden.
12. I note Mr X provided a photograph and annotated drawing alongside his objection. These show the position of his office window in relation to the conservatory and how the 45 degree code would apply.
13. A planning officer produced a report, setting out his consideration of the planning application with reference to the local development plan, relevant law and policy. The officer summarised the objections received from neighbours, including overlooking and loss of light.
14. I have summarised key points from the report:
• The development is unattractive and not in keeping with the surrounding area. This is contrary to relevant law and policy. This is a strong reason to refuse planning permission.
• The officer has considered the neighbour’s objections and any impact on light or overlooking. The officer considers there is not a substantial impact on neighbouring amenity and the proposal is acceptable on these grounds.
• The officer recommends the Council refuses to grant planning permission.
15. The Council’s decision notice shows it decided to refuse permission because the development was not in keeping with the surrounding area.
16. Mr Y made changes to the scale and design of the development and applied for planning permission again.
17. The drawings attached show Mr Y’s conservatory to the rear. These drawings show the existing conservatory windows and Mr X’s office window. The proposal, as before, involved removing the conservatory to accommodate a rear extension.
18. Mr X objected to the application enclosing his previous objections. He also said the drawings did not accurately show the position of his office window.
19. A planning officer produced a report, setting out his consideration of the application with reference to the local development plan, relevant law and policy. The officer summarised the objections received from neighbours, including overlooking and loss of light.
20. I have summarised the key points from this report:
• The proposal is now acceptable in terms of design and appearance.
• The officer has considered the neighbour objections and any impact on light or overlooking. The officer considers there is not a substantial impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposal is in line with relevant planning guidance. Overall it is acceptable on these grounds.
21. The Council then decided to grant planning permission.
22. On 29 July 2019 Mr X complained to the Council about its decision. He noted its reasons for refusing the first application and the differing judgement reached on the second application. He compared the measurements between the two sets of plans, noting the ridge height of the approved scheme was actually higher. He said his office was affected by loss of light, as raised in his objections. And, Mr Y had not accurately shown the position of his office window on the drawings.
23. The Council explained why it refused the first application. It said it worked with Mr Y pre-application about the alterations he would need to make. Mr Y then submitted a second application that it found acceptable. Although Mr Y increased the ridge height of the property, the Council considers there is a fair balance between the properties. Crucially Mr Y removed one of two dormers and the flat roof. The planning officer considered the objections and the impact on amenity but felt this did not justify refusal.
24. On 27 August Mr X asked the Council for more detail of the changes made between the two applications and questioned the importance of removing the flat roof. He repeated his dissatisfaction as to the impact on light to his office and privacy to his garden.
25. In response, on 9 October, the Council summarised the changes between the applications and explained the Council’s view on those changes. It also confirmed it was satisfied its officer had considered amenity in an appropriate manner.
26. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s decision, the process it followed and its complaint handling. He also noted the planning applicant did not own the land, and so questioned the legality of the application.
27. In response to enquiries the Council confirmed its officer had visited the site and it provided photographs taken from the front of Mr Y’s property. It reiterated its officer considered the planning applications correctly. It explained the 45 degree code did not apply to windows on the side of a property. This was stated in the 2005 SPD, though it noted the 2019 SPD was silent on this. The Council also provided copies of Mr Y’s objections to each planning application.
28. In relation to ownership of the land, the Council explained the planning applicant had to confirm ownership on the application form and it would not question this. Even if it were aware of an error in this respect, the applicant could correct and resubmit the application; this would not have affected the decision outcome.

Findings

29. I cannot question whether the Council was right or wrong in its decision to grant planning permission simply because Mr X disagrees with its judgement. Rather, I must can consider whether the Council followed a proper decision making process.
30. Mr X is concerned about loss of light to his home office and loss of privacy to his garden. In terms of loss of light, the Council will assess this using its 45 degree code in some cases. However, both the 2005 and 2019 SPD say the 45 degree code does not apply to side windows. The Council has no other specific requirements for developments such as Mr Y’s in respect of loss of light or loss of privacy to gardens. This means the Council will exercise its own judgement based on the information available.
31. Mr X believes the Council made its decision based on inaccurate information regarding his home office window. However, I am satisfied Mr X made clear the relationship between his home office window and Mr Y’s existing conservatory through his objections, which included a clear description, photo and annotated drawing. I am therefore satisfied the Council had the correct information available for consideration when making its decision.
32. Having reviewed the documents provided, I am satisfied the Council decided both planning applications in line with its local plan and taking account of material considerations. The Council was aware of the Mr X’s objections, including the impact to light and loss of privacy. The Council took account of all relevant information and decided the impact on Mr X’s amenity was not substantial. I note Mr X considers the Council acted inconsistently in accepting the second application. However, the Council’s reasons are evidenced in the officer reports and further explained in the complaint correspondence. I find no fault in its decision making process.
33. Having considered the documents provided I am satisfied the Council addressed Mr X’s complaints promptly. Although the Council did not provide as much detail in its responses as Mr X would have liked, I find this does not amount to fault.
34. The Council does not have to consider any private matters related to the land, such as any dispute over ownership. Therefore, I would not expect the Council to question the right of the planning applicant to make the application. I therefore find no fault by the Council in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no fault in the Council’s decision making process on a planning application or in its handling of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman