Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave inadequate consideration to his residential amenity when determining two applications on either side of his property. The information provided shows the Council gave proper consideration to the effect on his residential amenity including the effect of the slope of the road and the staggering of the properties.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to give adequate consideration to his residential amenity when determining two planning applications on either side of his property.
2. Mr X says the developments have affected his privacy and devalued his property.

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 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X lives in a detached house. The road he lives on has a slope and so the houses are built at different levels. Mr X says the houses are also staggered, rather than being built in a straight line, to take account of the slope.
7. Coincidentally, the properties on either side of Mr X’s property submitted planning applications at around the same time. The house to the south, property A, submitted an application in December 2018 for a single storey rear extension, first floor front extension, replacement front dormer and elevational alterations.
8. The house to the north of Mr X’s property, property B, originally submitted an application in August 2018 which was subsequently withdrawn. The neighbour submitted an application in October 2018 for the demolition of the existing side garage and extension and rear extension. As well as the erection of a two storey front/side extension and part two storey/single storey rear extension. Both applications were considered at the same planning meeting in 2019.

Consideration of property A

9. The committee report included a description of the proposal; a summary of comments from local residents and groups; details of relevant planning policies; the planning history of the site and an analysis of the main planning considerations.
10. The committee report included a section on neighbouring amenity. It noted that the topography of the area is such that the ground slopes from south to north. It went onto say that due to the bend in the road, the properties are staggered. It noted that property A is positioned higher and to the rear of Mr X’s property.
11. The Council said the single storey rear extension would not project beyond the existing utility room and so did not consider it would impact significantly on either neighbouring property with regards to loss of light, outlook or visual amenity. It also comments the flank elevations would be blank and so would not impact on current privacy levels.
12. The report noted the first-floor front extension will not project forward of Mr X’s property. It noted Mr X had raised concerns about the impact on sunlight and daylight at his property. The Council said that it had visited the site and felt the proposed development would not impact on light or outlook to any windows in Mr X’s property. It also commented that Mr X had raised concerns about the impact on his visual amenity from his rear garden. The Council said it did not consider the proposal would cause significant harm given the siting and separation.
13. Overall the Council took the view there would not be a significant loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties having regard to the scale, siting, separation distance, orientation and existing boundary treatment of the proposed development.

Consideration of property B

14. The committee report included a description of the proposal, comments from local residents and groups; comments from the highway authority; details of relevant policies; the planning history of the site and an analysis of the main planning considerations.
15. The report included a section on neighbouring amenity. It noted the topography of the site and that this property is positioned lower and forward of Mr X’s property.
16. The Council noted one new window in the northern flank elevation to serve a utility room. The plans indicated it would be obscure glazed and so the Council did not consider this would result in overlooking or loss of privacy. It said the siting and separation the part on/two storey side extension, was not considered to impact on Mr X’s property.
17. It also commented on the rear extension and the effect on Mr X’s property. It said the proposed rear extensions will not project beyond the rear of Mr X’s property. It noted a high level window within the flank elevation of Mr X’s property serving a lounge. It said the separation, orientation and topography of the site would not result in a significant impact on light or outlook to this window.
18. Overall the Council took the view the proposal was acceptable and would not harm the character of the host dwelling or the area of special residential character or the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

Analysis

19. It is understandable that Mr X has concerns when applications for development on both sides of his property are considered at the same time. There is nothing to suggest this is anything but coincidental.
20. The information provided shows the Council has considered each application on its own merits. The applications were both reported to committee and a report was prepared for each application setting out the main considerations. I am satisfied the Council considered both applications appropriately.
21. Mr X raises concerns about the description of the road in the committee reports. Mr X says the position of the houses on the road are staggered due to the slope and not because of the bend in the road. He says there is a bend in the road but not at the location of his property and the development sites. Mr X believes the Council has misunderstood the true position of the houses and the relationship between them.
22. The committee report notes both the slope of the road and the staggering of the properties. It says the staggering of the properties is clear from plans. It accepts the road in front of Mr X’s property is straight and the bend is further up the road. However, the Council says the issue is that the committee was aware of the slope and the staggering as this is what affects its consideration of the impact of the proposal. It says the reason for the staggering is not the issue but the fact there is staggering.
23. On the basis of the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council gave proper consideration to the effect of both proposals on Mr X’s residential amenity. I am satisfied the differences in height between the properties and the position of each property on its plot in relation to the neighbouring plot was also considered.
24. The committee reports clearly show the Council considered the impact on Mr X’s residential amenity. I appreciate he may not agree with the Council’s assessment of how he is affected but this is a matter of professional judgement. As there is no evidence of fault in the process leading to those decisions, I am unable to criticise them.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman