Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a planning decision. This because it is unlikely an investigation could add to the Council’s findings or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained that the Council failed to properly assess and wrongly approved a planning application. He said that as result, his home is overlooked and he has suffered a significant loss of privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council about the complaint. I also sent this draft decision to Mr X and have considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X objected to his neighbour’s extension on grounds that first-floor windows detailed in the plans would overlook his kitchen, patio and garden. Mr X felt the windows would result in a significant loss of privacy to his home.
5. A planning officer visited the neighbouring property but did not visit Mr X’s home. The officer’s report recorded Mr X’s objections. It also recorded that roof lights detailed in the neighbour’s plans would be low enough to see out of, but that any views would be of a “secondary window” in Mr X’s property.
6. Mr X had also complained that his garden would be overlooked. The officer’s report noted that permitted development rights, while not proposed as part of the neighbour’s scheme, would have allowed a large extension with first floor windows and have caused a comparable loss of privacy.
7. The Council approved the neighbour’s application. A senior Council planning officer met Mr X to discuss his concerns and reiterated that permitted development would have allowed a similar amount of overlooking.
8. Following this visit Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He complained the officer’s assessment was inadequate and that his own property had not been visited. He also said the senior officer had spent too long at the meeting talking about permitted development.
9. In its response the Council explained that in the officer’s opinion, any view from the rooflights would be limited due to their angle and position. Mr X’s doors were not the main point of outlook from the room, so the officer felt the impact on privacy would be low. The Council also explained that other extensions with rear windows in the locality had used permitted development rights, which do not require planning permission. It said that while officers had used this as a comparison of the planning harm caused to an overlooked garden, it was not a major consideration. Finally, the Council explained that the officer was able to assess the impact of the proposed development on Mr X’s property without visiting him by using the submitted plans and information provided by Mr X. The Council conceded the officer’s written report could have been clearer in respect of one aspect of Mr X’s objections and said it would seek to improve its reporting.
10. The Council’s final response said it could find no evidence to support Mr X’s claim that its processes were flawed or that its decision was wrong. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman. He said he had seen guidelines suggesting there should not be less than 21m between windows of habitable rooms. Mr X also said the Council was defensive, unhelpful and unsympathetic. He reiterated his belief that a reasonable assessment of the extension’s privacy impact required a visit to his home. He also complained of a “reliance” on what could be done under permitted development and that he had been advised that “pestering” the Council might have led to a different decision.

Back to top

Assessment

11. While the neighbour’s development has had an impact on Mr X’s property, I have seen no evidence the application was incorrectly assessed by the Council. The Council has explained how it decided the impact was insufficient to refuse the application. Permitted development rights were not a major consideration and the Council was not obliged to visit Mr X’s property. I have seen no evidence that guidelines referring to a 21m gap between properties would be applicable to the development that is the subject of Mr X’s complaint. I cannot tell if the decision might have been different if Mr X had “pestered” the Council.
12. The Council has conceded that one aspect of officer’s report could have been written more clearly and said it would aim to improve future reports. A senior officer also met with Mr X to discuss his concerns and I have seen no evidence that the Council was unhelpful or unsympathetic. I feel investigation would not add to the Council’s own complaints process, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation would add to the Council’s findings or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman