Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint, made on behalf of Mr X, about the Council’s planning notifications and decisions for a nearby residential development, and its decision not to use enforcement powers against the owner. There is not enough evidence of significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the planning and enforcement issues to warrant our investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X and Mrs Y seek from the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property behind a residential development. The host building has been renovated, adding a further storey and a balcony to serve a first floor flat.
2. Mrs Y, Mr X’s daughter, complains on her father’s behalf that the Council:
1. failed to consult with Mr X before granting the planning permissions;
2. will not take action against the developer for the works to the host building which affect his property.
3. Mrs Y says the development is an invasion of Mr X’s privacy due to the overlooking from the building. She says the edge of the balcony is a short distance away from his garden shed roof, compromising the security of his property. Mrs Y considers the development has reduced the value of Mr X’s property. Mrs Y wants the balcony serving the first floor flat to be removed.

Back to top

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs Y;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mrs Y to reply.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs Y says Mr X was not consulted by the Council about the planning applications. From the information I have seen, Mr X’s house was on the list of properties notified by letter about the 2017 application. It appears there was no notification process for the 2018 ‘variation of conditions’ application in 2018 which added the second balcony. Variation applications, where the changes are minor, do not normally require councils to consult, and it is for planning officers to decide whether they are acceptable. The Council’s position on the development as now permitted is that it is satisfied it has been built in line with the approved plans. Officers consider there are no breaches of planning permission which would give them reason to use any of their discretionary enforcement powers so have declined to do so.
7. Even if there has been fault by the Council in the 2018 planning notification and decision not to take enforcement action here, the planning outcome has not resulted in a significant personal injustice to Mr X which warrants us investigating.
8. In respect of overlooking and loss of privacy, the Council’s officers did not consider the addition of a further balcony serving one of the host property’s flats would cause such sufficient additional planning harm to warrant refusal. There was overlooking towards Mr X’s garden and property from his neighbour prior to the additional development, and from the development building’s existing permitted windows and a previously permitted balcony. The addition of the second balcony to the development property does not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X through impact on his property.
9. Mrs Y and Mr X consider there is a security issue caused by the new balcony. There is a short distance between Mr X’s garden shed flat roof and the edge of the balcony. They are concerned this compromises the security of his property because someone in the flat could use the balcony to climb on to his shed. It is unlikely the flat’s residents, who would have ready access to the balcony, would use it to climb on to Mr X’s property. The presence of the balcony does not make it more likely that trespass would happen. Mr X’s property is accessible, to someone sufficiently determined, from the ground behind the development building. The addition of the second balcony does not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X, in respect of the security of his property, which would justify our investigation.
10. A further claimed injustice to Mr X is reduction in the value of his property caused by the development. But the impact of a new development on existing properties’ values is not a material consideration within the planning process. This means the Council, as the local planning authority administering that process, could not take the issue into account when making its decisions. So there are no grounds for us to expect it to do so, or for us to consider it as an injustice to Mr X here.
11. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs Y and Mr X seek from the complaint, which is the removal of the new first floor balcony. The Council granted permission for the development over two years ago. We cannot order a council to revoke a planning permission, which is a further reason why we should not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of a significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the planning and enforcement matters to warrant our investigation;
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X and Mrs Y seek from the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman