Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for new dwellings near the complainant’s property. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a pair of semi-detached dwellings on land close to his home. In particular, Mr B says:
• The Council failed to properly consider the impact of the new dwellings on his privacy, and visited another neighbour’s property but did not visit his;
• The Council failed to have regard to a condition on the planning permission for Mr B’s own dwelling, which he says includes restrictions on having rear windows above first floor. Mr B says the Council has therefore been inconsistent by not imposing a similar restriction on the new semi-detached dwellings;
• The Council should have imposed conditions to protect his privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. And 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

5. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• The complaint correspondence between Mr B and the Council;
• Information about the planning application, including the report to the Planning Committee and the minutes of the meeting, on the Council’s website;
• Mr B’s comments on a draft version of this statement;
• The case officer’s reports and the decision notices for the planning applications relating to Mr B’s property. The restrictive condition referred to by Mr B says permission must be obtained before inserting any new windows at first floor level and above in the side elevations.

Back to top

What I found

6. I appreciate Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the new dwellings. But the Ombudsman cannot question that decision unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way it was made. In my view, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application, to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the complaint further. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• The case officer and the Planning Committee visited the land which formed the application site, so would have been aware of the layout and proximity of the surrounding dwellings;
• There is no duty or requirement for neighbouring properties to be visited as part of the assessment of a planning application. It was a matter for the case officer’s professional judgement whether he needed to visit any neighbouring properties and, if so, which ones. The case officer visited the neighbour whose property would be immediately adjacent to the new dwellings, and whose rear garden separates the application site from Mr B’s own rear garden/boundary. This neighbour visit would have afforded the case officer the opportunity to understand/assess the potential wider impacts on other properties, including Mr B’s.
• The objections to the application are summarised in the Committee report, including concerns about loss of privacy/overlooking and the existence of a two-storey restriction on Mr B’s property, so these have not been ignored;
• The Committee report goes on to consider the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring properties. In particular, it says:

“In terms of privacy, due to the separation distances and the right-angle orientation of the proposed dwellings, it is considered that no undue loss of privacy would occur to properties on Road A [changed for anonymity reasons]. A similar relationship exists between the application site and Mr B’s property [changed for anonymity reasons] (located to the north west), due to the orientation of the application site, the proposed location of the rear windows would not afford direct views into the rear of property or patio areas on Mr B’s road [changed for anonymity reasons].

In terms of the rear windows on the rear elevations of the proposed development, whilst these would be located closer to neighbouring boundaries, the resulting relationship from these would not be abnormal in suburban locations such as this, and so it is not considered that this would be detrimental to the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties.

In addition, part of the proposal would include a small rear dormer in each rear roof slope of the semi-detached properties. It is considered that the views from the rear dormers would not result in any undue impacts in terms of overlooking. Any views form these elements would be at oblique angles across neighbouring gardens and is typical for suburban areas.”

• The case officer was entitled to reach his own judgement on whether the level of overlooking was acceptable and if any conditions/amendments were necessary, even if his view was at odds to those expressed by objectors.
• Each planning application must be determined on its own merits, having regard to current planning policy and any other material planning considerations. So, although a condition was imposed on the 2008 permission for Mr B’s property, to control overlooking from the side elevations facing other properties, this does not mean the same condition is appropriate for a 2018 permission where the elevations in question are at 90o to each other.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate his complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman