Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a new house in his neighbour’s garden. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has given planning permission for a new house in his neighbour’s garden. He says he will have an unrestricted view into the new house from his Juliet balcony and:
• He will lose his privacy
• The new building is too close to his property and is overbearing
2. He also says the Council:
• lied about the trees on the boundary providing sufficient screening
• failed to tell people about the Party Wall Act
• called his front garden a field; and
• failed to read his correspondence properly
3. He wants the Council to:
• Require his neighbours rooflights to be made non-opening with obscure glazing
• Erect a fence between his and the neighbour’s front gardens; and
• Pay him compensation for the stress and pressure this matter has caused.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

5. 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

6. I considered:
• The information provided by Mr X
• The Council’s responses to his complaint
• The planning information available on the Council’s website

Mr X commented on this draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a new house in his garden. Mr X objected to the planning application for the following reasons:
• Highway concerns
• Noise from future residents
• Overbearing
• Impact on the character of the area
• Overlooking
• Possible damage to trees during construction
• Possible damage to his property during construction
• Impact on wildlife; and
• It would set a precedent
8. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the proposal. He noted:
• the highways department did not object
• the proposal is for a chalet style bungalow and will not appear prominent in the street scene
• there are a variety of styles of buildings in the area and the proposal could not be refused on design grounds
• there are no windows in Mr X’s buildings on the side closest to the development, so there can be no loss of light or privacy to the property. Nor can it be considered overbearing.
• damage to Mr X’s trees is unlikely given the distance between them and the proposed building.
9. The case officer also noted that possible damage to the foundations of Mr X’s property is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.
10. I am satisfied that the Planning Officer considered the objections to the planning application and considered them according to Council policy and the law. Where there is no evidence of procedural fault by the Council, the Ombudsman cannot question the professional judgement of the Planning Officer. Mr X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, without fault in the process, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.
11. The Party Wall Act is a civil matter between neighbours. It is not something the Council or Ombudsman can be involved with. Nor is the Council responsible for advising planning applicants about their party wall or other civil obligations.
12. In a response to Mr X, the Council confirmed the case officer visited the application site. The photographs taken show immediately next to the site there is a there is a tree lined hedge on the boundary between the new development, then a grass verge adjacent to the entrance to Mr X’s drive. It says beyond this there is what appears to be a field. The Council confirms it has no records of a change of use of the field and for it to be used as a garden rather than a field.
13. Without an records for change of use from a field to being brought within the curtilage of a domestic garden, I cannot find fault in the officer describing the land as a field. Also, as the Council considered Mr X’s objections to the planning application, I see no reason to pursue this matter further.
14. Finally, the Council must consider planning applications on the merits of each proposed scheme. I have seen no evidence that approval of his neighbour’s application has set a precedent for development where he lives.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council processed his neighbour’s planning application. Nor can we require the Council to make the neighbours alter their rooflights if they have been installed according to the planning permission or erect a fence.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman