Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s extension and to allow an additional dormer window. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because the Council granted planning permission more than 12 months ago. Mrs Y did not experience a significant injustice from the recent matters complained about.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mrs Y, complains about the Council’s decision to:
1. to grant planning permission for the extension of a neighbouring house; and
2. allow the subsequent addition of a dormer window as Permitted Development.
2. Mrs Y says she has suffered injustice because the neighbouring extension is overbearing, impacts upon her privacy and blocks light.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. When considering Mrs Y’s complaint I reviewed all complaint correspondence and relevant planning documents. I spoke with Mrs Y to clarify my understanding of her complaint. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction.
7. I issued a draft decision which the Council and Mrs Y had an opportunity to comment on. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning decisions

8. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the decrease in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
9. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. It is for the officer to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.

Permitted Development

10. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain development (both building works and changes of use) to be carried out without making a planning application to the Council.
11. Each type of permitted development right has certain conditions and limits. If a development does not meet all the relevant criteria, then a planning application will be required.
12. Councils can remove permitted development rights. For example, in granting planning permission for a new house, the Council may apply a condition removing some permitted development rights to later extend that house. This does not mean the house cannot be extended, but rather the homeowner will need to apply to the Council for a specific grant of planning permission for the extension.

What happened

13. In 2018 Mrs Y’s neighbours applied to the Council for permission to demolish an existing garage and to build a two-storey extension in its replacement. Mrs Y wrote to the Council to object to the proposals; she said the extension was large, too close to her boundary and would reduce daylight into her house.
14. The Council considered the proposals and Mrs Y’s objections. After weighing up the material planning considerations, alongside the relevant Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), the planning officer decided on balance to grant planning permission in late 2018. This was despite the plans not being fully in accordance with the SPG. The officer explained their rationale for the decision.
15. Mrs Y’s neighbour began development. Mrs Y had concerns that some of the works were not in accordance with the approved plans. Mrs Y tells me she raised these concerns with the Council and an officer visited the site to take measurements and photographs to assess whether there was a breach of planning control. Mrs Y tells me the Council considered the matter but decided there was no breach for it to enforce against.
16. In 2019 the neighbour then added a dormer window to the rear of the property. This was not in accordance with the plans approved in 2018. Mrs Y reported her concerns to the Council. The Council considered whether a breach of planning control had occurred, and if so, whether it was expedient to pursue enforcement action. After taking legal advice, the Council decided the dormer window was permitted development. It took no further action.
17. Mrs Y did not complain to the Council about any alleged fault in the planning process until October 2019. Her complaint to the Ombudsman followed in December; over one year after the Council’s original decision to grant permission.

My analysis

18. Part a) of Mrs Y’s complaint is too late for the Ombudsman to consider and I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate. When discussing the complaint with me, Mrs Y said she accepted she could have complained about the decision to grant planning permission sooner. She explained that she only complained once building work started because in her view the building work was not in accordance with the plans. However, Mrs Y’s complaint is not about a lack of enforcement action, but rather about the merits of the Council’s original decision in November 2018 to grant planning permission. It remains my view that Mrs Y could and should have complained to the Council, and then the Ombudsman, about this matter sooner.
19. Part b) of Mrs Y’s complaint concerns the addition of a rear dormer window. I asked Mrs Y what impact the window has on her. She told me that it did not further reduce her privacy but added to the size and dominance of the extension. Although this part of Mrs Y’s complaint could be separated from complaint a), it is my view that Mrs Y is not adversely affected by the dormer window to an extent which warrants the Ombudsman’s further involvement.
20. For these reasons, the Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into the complaints made by Mrs Y.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into complaint a) due to it not being made within 12 months and complaint b) due to there being a lack of significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman