Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault affecting its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of his neighbour’s loft conversion on his outlook and privacy. He also complains the development is out of keeping with the area and will impact on the value of his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s responses and the application documents including the planning officer’s report. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X’s neighbour, Mr Y, applied for planning permission to convert his loft in 2018. The Council did not consult Mr X as he is not an adjoining neighbour. It put up a site notice, contacted several adjoining neighbours and received one objection. The parish council also commented on the proposal but did not formally object.
5. The Council considered the impact of the proposal in planning terms, including whether the proposal would harm the character of the area and neighbour amenity. It decided the proposal was acceptable so granted permission for it.
6. Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision. He says the development is a monstrosity which ruins his outlook and may reduce the value of his home. He is also concerned it looks down into his garden and to the rooms at the rear of his house.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s decision is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. We cannot therefore criticise it.
8. The evidence shows the Council wrote to neighbours inviting their comments but there was no requirement for it to write to Mr X as his property does not adjoin the application site.
9. The planning officer’s report shows the Council took account of the comments received and explains why, in their view, the proposal is acceptable. I appreciate that Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view but this is not evidence of fault. The report clearly considers the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and neighbour amenity and it is not for us to question the officer’s judgement on these points.
10. While Mr X says the Council has given no thought to the impact of the proposal on his property, it has considered the impact on properties which are much closer. Where the planning officer properly considers the impact on adjoining properties as it has done here there is no requirement for them to set out individually the impact on all other properties which are further away.
11. The Council has explained that because of the distance between Mr X’s property and the application site, and the angles involved, it could not justify refusing the application on the basis of the impact on his privacy. This is consistent with its policy and the policy of other local planning authorities and I see no reasons for us to question its view.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman