Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly assumed his neighbours proposed extension would not harm his privacy when granting planning permission. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly assumed his neighbour’s proposed extension would not harm his privacy when granting planning permission.
2. He says the extension will allow direct views into his property and will have a significant impact on his privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

Relevant law and legislation

Planning permission

7. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
8. Material planning considerations may include:

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

9. Material planning considerations do not include:

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

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

Site Visits

11. Council officers and planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using aerial photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.

Decision making process & delegation

12. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.

What happened

13. Mr X says that around 10 years ago his neighbour removed a boundary fence when it fell into disrepair. To maintain his privacy, Mr X erected a fence on his own land.
14. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to carry out works to their property.
15. Mr X and his family objected to the application, raising concerns including the impact on their privacy.
16. A planning officer visited the site and prepared a report assessing the proposal against relevant planning policies and material considerations, including its impact on neighbouring amenity. The officer noted the presence of a boundary fence between the properties and concluded it would prevent direct overlooking. The application did not include any changes to boundary treatments. The Council granted planning permission.
17. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision. He said the Council had wrongly assumed his privacy would not be affected. He explained the fence on his land needed to be removed to improve access to his property and that removing it would result in a loss of privacy, particularly given the proximity of proposed windows to the boundary.
18. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It said the application had been assessed based on the circumstances at the time of the site visit, when a boundary fence was in place. It concluded the fence provided sufficient screening to prevent overlooking. It said matters relating to boundary treatment were private civil issues and not for the planning system to resolve. It suggested Mr X could discuss reinstating a fence with his neighbour or erect a new fence on his own land, subject to permitted development limits.
19. Mr X escalated his complaint. He said the Council had wrongly placed responsibility on him to protect his privacy, contrary to planning policy. He said the officer had relied on the presence of a fence on his land, which he considers temporary and which restricts access to his property.
20. In its final response, the Council maintained its position. It said the application was properly assessed based on site conditions at the time, including the presence of the fence. It said boundary treatments are private matters unless specifically part of a planning application. It also said it could not require changes to the approved development or compel amendments in the absence of a planning breach.

My findings

21. 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,
22. The impact on neighbouring amenity, including privacy, is a material planning consideration. The evidence shows the Council considered this. The officer’s report addressed overlooking and concluded the existing boundary fence would prevent harmful loss of privacy.
23. The Council carried out a site visit. Officers are entitled to rely on site conditions at the time of their assessment. A fence was present between the properties, and it was reasonable for the Council to take this into account when assessing the impact of the development.
24. The plans showed the fence was on Mr X’s land. However, ownership or responsibility for boundary features is not a material planning consideration. The key issue for the Council was the physical presence of screening at the time, not who owned it.
25. Mr X says the fence is temporary and needs to be removed to improve access. However, it had been in place for around 10 years and remained in place at the time the Council made its decision. The Council was entitled to assess the application based on the existing situation rather than potential future changes.
26. While Mr X objected to the application, there is no evidence he told the Council the fence would be removed, resulting in a loss of privacy. In any event, councils are not generally required to consider speculative future scenarios, such as the removal of boundary screening not part of the application.
27. The application did not propose any changes to boundary treatment. As such, the Council could not reasonably impose a condition requiring a fence, as conditions must relate to the development and meet legal tests.
28. The Council followed the correct decision-making process. It considered relevant policies and material considerations, carried out a site visit, and explained its reasoning.
29. I therefore find no fault in the way the Council assessed the impact on Mr X’s privacy or in its decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman