Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council considered the impact of an extension to an existing building on Mrs X’s home.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council granted planning permission for extension to a business next to her home. Mrs X says the extension will result in unacceptable overlooking of her home and garden and an increase in traffic to the site.

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)
3. 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

4. I have spoken to Mrs X about her complaint and considered the information she has provided to the Ombudsman.
5. I have considered information the Council has provided to us which consists of its response to Mrs X’s complaints. I have also considered information about the planning application available on the Council’s website.
6. I have written to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law

7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with a council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. When considering planning applications councils can only take account of material considerations. These relate to the use and development of land in the public interest. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. Councils cannot take account of private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, land rights or reduction in the value of a property.
9. Councils will notify local people when a planning application is received and give them an opportunity to comment. The volume or strength of local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission. However, councils must consider any material planning considerations raised in comments from local people.

What happened

10. Mrs X lives next to business premises. In late 2018 the owners of the business applied for planning permission for a two storey extension which would bring the premises closer to Mrs X’s home.
11. The Council’s planning committee considered the application in early 2019 and deferred making a decision until issues of potential ground water flooding could be clarified.
12. The application was considered again by the planning committee the following month. The committee considered a Council officer report which set out consideration of the application and the impact of the extension on Mrs X’s home amongst other matters. The report said:

“There are four large existing first floor windows on the main building element of [the building] that directly face [Mrs X’s home]. Officers do not consider that the addition of a further two windows would result in any additional harm upon the occupiers of [Mrs X’s property] ... In addition, the distance between the first floor windows and the front of [Mrs X’s home] is approximately 24 metres. The [Council’s policy] recommends that the minimum distance between buildings on similar levels with windows facing back to back is 21 metres and therefore the proposals are in accordance with the recommended design principles”.

13. The officer report also considered the impact of any increased business on Mrs X’s home. The report said:

“Officers do not consider that the [proposed extension] would significantly increase the comings and goings associated with the existing… use of the site. Officers do not consider that the potential for a slight increase in traffic movement would result in a negative impact on highway safety at the well-established access to the site. Similarly, the potential slight increase in traffic would not result in a harmful impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of traffic noise. [Mrs X’s home] is a residential dwelling within close proximity to a building with a long and well-established use… and therefore a degree of noise from traffic and people movement is to be expected and is not considered by Officers to be harmful or unacceptable”.

14. The report went on to consider impact on Mrs X’s home as a result of external lights on the neighbouring building and recommended a condition to control this.
15. The planning committee granted planning permission and attached a condition requiring the owner to submit details of any external lighting to the Council and for this to be agreed in writing.
16. On 6 March 2019 Mrs X complained to the Council. Mrs X said the Council had not property considered the impact of the extension on her home. She said the Council’s officer report said there was already some “mutual overlooking” between the business and her home. However, Mrs X said the existing windows served cupboards and a hallway, but new windows would serve rooms which would be regularly used.
17. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 15 March 2019. The Council said there would inevitably be disruption caused to Mrs X as a result of the operations of the business which had been in existence “for many years”. The Council said it could not take account of impact on views from her property or overlooking of her garden as these were not relevant considerations. The Council said its policies set out minimum acceptable distances between windows of 21 metres. The Council said the distance between Mrs X’s home and the new extension was 25 metres.
18. Mrs X responded to the Council on 18 March 2019. She said she was still unhappy with the Council’s consideration of the impact of overlooking on her garden. Mrs X said she was looking for a compromise such as a high hedge or windows being moved or fitted with obscure glazing.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X on 21 March 2019 and repeated its previous response that any harm to Mrs X’s property caused by the extension was not sufficient to warrant refusing planning permission. The Council said it would, however, speak to the owner of the property about fitting obscured glazing.
20. The Council e-mailed Mrs X on 4 April 2019 to say the owner of the business had agreed to “obscure glaze the lower portions of the two windows” which look towards her home. The Council said this could “only be an informal agreement because now the decision has been issued, the Council cannot change the approval notice”.

My findings

21. There is no fault in the way the Council has considered the planning application and the impact of the extension and its use on Mrs X’s home. The Council’s officer report clearly sets out the Council’s consideration of its policies and the relationship between Mrs X’s home and the proposed extension.
22. Even if the Council had not considered the use associated with existing windows it has still considered its policy on appropriate separation distances between windows on neighbouring properties. Therefore, there is no fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission. The Council has gone further than it was required to by asking the owner to install obscure glazing but this does not mean the Council is at fault. Given the distance between the two buildings it is unlikely the Council could have insisted on this through a condition on the planning permission.
23. I understand Mrs X is concerned about overlooking from the property into her garden. Some overlooking of gardens is inevitable between adjacent buildings However, the Council has considered its standard separation distances between buildings. By considering separation distance between the two buildings the Council has properly considered the impact of overlooking on Mrs X’s home, including her garden.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation as I have found no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman