Summary: Mr X complains the Council considered incorrect distances when determining a planning application at a neighbouring property. Mr X’s complaint about this is late and so falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. There is no fault in how the Council considered an application for a non-material amendment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council considered incorrect distances when determining a planning application at neighbouring property.
2. Mr X says you can see directly into his kitchen and garden from one of the windows in the new dormer extension and his privacy is grossly affected.

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 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)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X’s neighbour made a planning application in January 2018 for external changes and a first floor dormer. The Council notified Mr X of the application and he made objections.
8. Mr X said the proposal would change the property to a four bedroom house within a row of traditional retirement bungalows, changing the whole atmosphere of the area. He said the three windows to the rear of the property would completely negate his privacy and the windows would overlook his rear garden. He also said the design of the rear of the property would be out of keeping with the existing adjacent properties.
9. The Council considered the application under delegated powers and granted conditional approval. The delegated decision report included Mr X’s objections in full and the officer’s response to them. It also included the planning officer’s analysis of the application.
10. The delegated decision report made specific reference to Mr X’s property and the relationship with the development site. It was noted the height of the building would not increase and that there was precedent in the area of first floor windows adjacent to a single storey dwelling.
11. The report stated that the centre and end window nearest to Mr X’s property would be obscure glazed and so not result in unacceptable over-looking or loss of privacy. It went on to say the clear window serving a bedroom would be a minimum of 10 metres from Mr X’s boundary and would not directly overlook the rear garden and any view would be oblique and limited.
12. Mr X’s neighbour made an application for a non-material minor amendment in March 2019. The amendment was to change a flat roof to a pitched roof. The delegated decision report says flat roof was approved at a height of 2.8 metres and width of 8.7 metres. The changes would mean a pitched roof with a height of 2.6 metres and the whole dormer would be 8 metres wide. When considering the application the Council determined there would be no increased impact on the neighbouring residential amenities.
13. Mr X told me that he has been complaining about this development for over two years. He said the Council dismissed his concerns and would not engage with him. The information I have shows the Council wrote to Mr X in January 2019 setting out its rationale for the decision. It also instructed an enforcement officer to visit the site and check the development against the approved plans.
14. Mr X made a formal complaint in December 2019. He complained about the clear glazed window and the 10 metre distance stated in the delegated decision report. The Council said that while the window may be marginally closer than was specified in the report, it did not consider this significantly changed the potential for overlooking. It quoted policy GP2 which details the criteria the development should meet. The policy says the development should not lead to undue overshadowing or loss of privacy and should ensure that occupants of new and existing dwellings have a satisfactory degree of privacy.”
15. The Council explained that any assessment about effect on privacy would be a matter of judgement but that in this case it also considered the fact that the window could have been inserted without the need for planning permission under permitted development rules.
16. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. As part of his complaint he provided photographs and drawings. The Council responded saying that it understood that he would feel overlooked when using the rear part of his garden but it questioned the extent to which the interior of his property would be overlooked. It noted the window on the development was not yet glazed and Mr X’s camera was forward of where the glazing will be.
17. Mr X questioned the measurement of 10 metres which had been stated in the delegated decision report. Mr X’s measurements were 6.4 metres. The Council said this was a matter of interpretation and that the officer had measured from the plans and had taken an arc from the centre of the bedroom window. It noted Mr X had measured from the near side of the window to the closest point on his property. It said this did not make the officer’s measurement incorrect.
18. The Council commented that the planning process was based on national and local policies as well as the professional judgement of planning officers. It said that while it could understand why Mr X felt aggrieved, it could not see that there were planning reasons to refuse the application. It also noted again that the development could have been carried out under permitted development rights.

Analysis

19. The Ombudsman does not normally consider a complaint unless it is made to him within 12 months of the person first becoming aware that something had happened which affected them. Mr X first knew about this planning application in January 2018 but he did not contact the Ombudsman until December 2019. This means Mr X’s complaint is “late” and I must consider whether to exercise discretion to now consider it.
20. Mr X said that he has been complaining for over two years. The information shows the Council wrote to Mr X in January 2019 about the planning application and that Mr X made a formal complaint in December 2019. I have not seen evidence of contact between Mr X and the Council following the grant of planning permission in March 2018. I am also unclear why Mr X waited until December 2019 to make a formal complaint.
21. Mr X says he was not given information about how to complain or how to contact the Ombudsman. I am satisfied there is easily accessible information on the Council’s website about the complaints process and that details of our service are also included. I am therefore not minded to exercise discretion and investigate a complaint about the grant of planning permission in March 2018.
22. However, even if I were to exercise discretion, I have not seen anything to suggest fault causing a significant injustice. Mr X has provided different measurements regarding the distance between his property and the clear glazed window to those stated in the delegated decision report. But it is clear the difference is due to how the measurements were taken. Even if I were to accept the Council considered an incorrect measurement, I am not persuaded this would have changed the decision.
23. The Council has explained the window could have been built under permitted development rights. It also considered the relationship between the properties. This is not a direct window to window relationship. The properties are built at an angle to each other and so any overlooking from the first floor window in the neighbouring property will be at an oblique angle. I appreciate Mr X does not agree with the decision made in this case. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the impact on Mr X’s property and used its professional judgement to decide any impact was not so detrimental as to warrant refusal of the planning application.
24. Mr X did complain to the Ombudsman within 12 months of its decision on the non-material minor amendment application. However, he has not made any specific complaint about fault in that process. The information I have seen shows the application was properly considered. The amendments were to change a flat roof into a pitched roof and there is nothing to suggest this change has significantly impacted on Mr X’s residential amenity.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman