Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mrs Y’s complaint about the way the Council considered the possible impact on their property’s amenity when granting consent to a neighbour’s extension. While the Council took account of the potential impact it would have, it failed to deal with her formal complaint properly according to its complaints process. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council failed to:
1. consider the impact of her neighbour’s extension on her property when it granted planning consent; and
2. respond to her complaints about it.
2. As a result, she says the extension will cause loss of light to her ground floor bedroom and kitchen windows, which has caused her distress, and put her to unnecessary time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 all the information Mrs Y sent and the Council’s response to our enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I also sent my draft decision to Mrs Y and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs Y is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with a neighbour’s planning application to extend their house to the side and rear. The neighbouring property is about 1.8 metres away from her side wall. When notified of the application, she sent representations to the Council, mainly about its impact on light to her property. She is unhappy with the way the Council assessed the extension’s impact on her home, particularly light, and the way it dealt with her formal complaint.

Complaint a): Impact

8. In her representations to the Council, Mrs Y set out her concerns about the extension reducing light to her rooms with windows facing it. She believes the Council failed to properly assess the extension’s impact on light to her property, especially the kitchen-dining room. She argued there was a failure to apply the correct tests for assessing light impact on her kitchen window, and a ground floor window to a bedroom.
9. The Design and Access Statement, sent by the applicant with the application, shows a 45-degree line from:

• Mrs Y’s ground floor bedroom window (window A) to the edge of the nearest corner wall of the extension. This is the ‘plan’ drawing (looking from above) and shows no breach of the 45-degree test. On the elevation drawing (looking from the side), it shows this window within the 45-degree angle from the slope of the extension’s roof; and
• Mrs Y’s kitchen window (window B) to the slope of the roof on the extension. This is the ‘elevation’ drawing. Window B directly faces the new extension.

10. The statement states if the centre of neighbouring windows lies on the extension side of both the 45-degree lines (on plan and elevation), then more light impact tests are needed. Otherwise, daylight and sunlight levels are unlikely to be badly affected because windows will continue to receive light over the roof or beyond the end of the proposed extension. It notes, ‘our checks show that windows are not impacted in both plan & elevation and therefore daylight and sunlight levels are unlikely to be adversely affected by these proposals’.
11. The planning officer’s report noted the following:

• Saved policy 59.BE (vii): this requires a development to avoid unduly impacting on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, in particular, by way of overbearing impact, loss of light or outlook, and overlooking;
• The existing side elevation facing Mrs Y had no windows on the upper floor but would have under the proposals although this would be to a bathroom window. The Council could control its impact by including a condition for obscured glass. It would also face Mrs Y’s blank elevation wall;
• The separation distance of the 2 properties and proposed part single-storey rear and 2 storey side extension would not breach the Council’s 45 Degree Code set out in the ‘Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD); and
• Mrs Y’s windows, which serve habitable rooms, are not impacted in both plan and elevation, retain reasonable quality outlook and access to natural light. This means the proposal does not result in any material harm to the light levels currently enjoyed by Mrs Y.

12. The SPD states: the impact on the level of daylight available is particularly important in living rooms, dining rooms, and kitchens; daylight in bedrooms may be considered but, is generally considered less important; local circumstances such as land level difference and orientation should be accounted for; guidance and tables are provided in the ‘BRE report Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight-A guide to Good Practice’ (2002). This guidance is used where there is any doubt about the acceptability of proposals and day/sunlight.
13. It goes on to explain how to check daylight impact for extensions. On the window wall elevation, an angle is drawn diagonally down at 45 degrees from the near top corner of the proposed extension. An angle of 45 degrees is then drawn back from the end of the extension towards the window wall. If the centre of the main window of the adjoining property lies on both these lines, then the extension will probably cause a noticeable reduction in skylight received by the window.
14. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained:

• The officer report noted the proposed part single storey, and 2 storey side extension, would not breach the 45-degree code in the SPD. This is because Mrs Y’s windows serving habitable rooms are not impacted in both plan and elevation and will keep reasonable quality outlook and access to natural light;
• Under the Saved Policy, the Council will try to protect main habitable room windows on the front and rear elevations of adjacent properties but not secondary windows such as to halls, bathrooms, and stairs for example;
• It accepts there will be some loss of light to a ground floor window in Mrs Y’s property in the rear wall. The extension is to the north of her house. As her house is to the south of it, this means the extension’s impact on sunlight is minimal because of its orientation and separation distance. It does not consider it will result in a harmful loss of light or appear over dominant;
• The impact of daylight is limited to main habitable rooms only. It accepts it will impact on the ground floor bedroom window but, this is a secondary habitable room and so has less weight attached to it. It is also the smallest room in the house at ground floor, and as such, does not attach great weight to it. The main outlook from this room is a rear facing window which means reasonable access to quality outlook and access to natural light. The extension would not block an unacceptable amount of daylight to it justifying a refusal decision; and
• The side facing window to the kitchen will also experience some reduced light levels but, this it not the main window for the room as there is a good-sized rear facing glazing with an outlook which is unharmed, along with a roof lantern.

Analysis

15. The Design and Access Statement shows drawings where the 45-degree test, applied to extensions perpendicular (at right angles) to a window in a neighbouring property, was applied on both the elevation and plan drawings:

• Window A:

Elevation test: One of the drawings for the rear of the extension shows window A, which does not directly face the extension but faces Mrs Y’s rear garden, falling within the 45-degree angle drawn from the corner/slope of the extension’s roof.

Plan test: On the plan drawing, window A is not within the 45-degree angle drawn from the extension wall edge.

• Window B:

Elevation test: The side kitchen window directly facing the extension, is not within the 45-degree angle on the elevation plan from the extension’s roof.

16. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the extension’s impact on Mrs Y’s amenities. This is because of the evidence in the planning officer’s report. The report has a section titled, ‘Residential Amenity’. This noted the saved policy which requires developments to avoid unduly impacting on the amenities of neighbours, including light. It also noted the extension was to the north of Mrs Y, took account of the separation distance, and concluded it would not breach the SPD about light.
17. The report stated the proposal would not impact on light to habitable rooms in both plan and elevation. The habitable rooms would keep reasonable quality outlook and access to natural light. This means it would not materially harm light levels to Mrs Y’s property.
18. When reaching its decision on this planning application, the Council had to consider and weigh the potential impact of light to her property, its SPD, and information provided by the applicant about what was proposed. I found no fault on this complaint as I am satisfied the Council did this which means, we cannot challenge the merits of a properly taken decision.

Complaint b): Complaints process

19. Mrs Y is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her formal complaint. The following are key dates:

2020

• 5 July: She sent the Council a complaint and, although she received an acknowledgement 3 days later, and was told a full response would be sent by 29 July, she heard nothing further.
• 17 August: She called the Council about its lack of response who told her an officer would call her back. Again, she heard nothing.
• 1 September: Mrs Y emailed the Council about its lack of response.

2021

• 14 January: The Council responded to her complaint apologising for the long delay. It explained staff were still working remotely because of Covid-19 restrictions and there were high workloads.

Analysis

20. The Council’s complaints procedure is as follows:

• Level 1: A lead specialist/operational manager of the service area involved will investigate the complaint; and
• Level 2: A member of the senior leadership team will independently review the complaint investigation.

21. It will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days and aim to resolve the investigation within 15 working days after acknowledgement. It will keep the complainant informed and where there is an unavoidable delay, it will let the complainant know.
22. I found fault on this complaint. Despite the Covid-19 restrictions affecting the country, it took 6 months to respond to her complaint. At no time did it explain it would need more time than usual to respond to her complaint or explain why this was the case.
23. I am satisfied this caused some distress to Mrs Y (frustration, time and effort pursuing it, and loss of confidence in the Council).

Back to top

Agreed action

24. I considered our guidance on remedies.
25. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Pay £100 to Mrs Y for injustice the identified fault caused; and
2. Covid-19 restrictions notwithstanding, to review why it took so long to deal with her complaint, and why it failed to provide updates about progress, so this is not repeated in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman made the following decisions on Mrs Y’s complaint against the Council:

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman