Summary: Mr X complained the Council completed an inadequate review of a planning application for the property next to his. Mr X says the proposed extension will have a significant impact on his privacy and amenity. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council completed an inadequate review of a planning application for the property next to his.
2. Mr X says the proposed extension will have a significant impact on his privacy and amenity. Mr X says the proposed extension will provide his neighbour an overlooking of his rear garden and rooms at the back of his house. Mr X also says the proposed extension will have a negative impact on the value of his home and it is not keeping with the character of the area.
3. Mr X also complained the Council failed to consider the view from their property, dismissed his objections to the planning permission and his complaint.

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’. 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)
6. 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

7. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. I have also considered the planning applications, the planning officer’s reports and decision notice.
9. I gave Mr X and the Council opportunity to comment on my draft decision, neither provided comment.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

10. When a council makes a decision on a planning application it can only take certain issues into account. These are often referred to as “material planning considerations.” Examples of material planning considerations include:
• Local and national planning policies.
• Loss of sunlight.
• Overshadowing, overlooking or loss of outlook and privacy.
11. Boundary disputes and damage to property are a private matter between neighbours and are not material planning considerations. Impact on the value of another person’s home is also not a matter for planning considerations.

Council Policies

Policy EM10 - Delivering High Quality Development

12. This Council policy outlines that any development proposals must consider the amenities of neighbouring properties. The Council will allow developments when they provide a high-quality amenity for the occupants and the development considers neighbouring overlooking and outlook.
13. This links to section 10.22 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document. The Council sets out that existing properties should enjoy a pleasant outlook from the main habitable rooms, ideally encompassing views towards natural features.

Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document

14. Section 10 of this policy considers Residential Amenity.
15. Section 10.10 outlines the best way of ensuring privacy for new and existing housing is to ensure that windows do not look directly into private areas. Private areas include habitable rooms and patios in gardens immediately adjoining the building.
16. Where a development is back-to-back and the development covers two-storeys, the minimum distance between direct window facings should be 20metres. The Council may consider this minimum distance necessary when back-to-back facings of houses are at less than a 30-degree angle.
17. Section 11 of this policy considers extensions.
18. A person must consider the impact on neighbouring properties when designing an extension.
19. This section of the policy outlines an extension should not have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. The policy outlines again that developments should avoid direct facing windows on rear developments of less than 20 metres distance.
20. Section 11.46 of this policy directly considers windows. The policy says the scale and proportion of the windows should provide continuity between the original house and the extension. This is for both the size of the windows themselves and the ratio of window size to brickwork.

What Happened

21. Mr X’s neighbours made a planning application, which I will refer to as Application 1, to the Council on 14 July 2020. Application 1 sought a single-story rear extension and a first-floor side extension.
22. Mr X objected to the planning application in August 2020. Mr X did not object to the single-story rear extension but did object to the first-floor side extension. Mr X said the proposed first-floor side extension included a window which directly overlooked his rear garden and rooms to the rear of his property. Mr X said this would cause him to lose privacy and amenity.
23. The Council officer completed their report of Application 1 on 8 September 2020. The Council officer’s report said:
• One neighbour had objected to the planning application due to a loss of privacy and amenity.
• The proposed works would be in keeping with the character of the property and the local area.
• The proposed first-floor extension is set back from the rear wall of the existing first floor and would increase overshadowing. Any harm from this overshadowing would not be enough to refuse the application.
• The window (fenestration) to the first-floor extension would have views of the neighbouring properties amenity space. However, given the distance and oblique angle of these views this would not cause enough harm to refuse the application.
• The first-floor extension would reduce overlooking in some way by blocking views from the current first floor windows.
24. The Council approved Application 1 on 8 September 2020.
25. Mr X complained to the Council about the decision to approve Application 1. The Council sent Mr X its Stage 1 response on 30 September 2020. The Council said:
• The Council officer’s report considered Mr X’s objections to the application.
• The Council officer decided the oblique nature of the window placements on the first-floor extension would not present an unacceptable loss to privacy.
• The first-floor extension would block views from the existing two rear windows which currently overlook Mr X’s property.
• The Council officer’s report made the correct assessment and there was no need to visit Mr X’s property.
26. Mr X disputed the Stage 1 response on 2 October 2020. Mr X said the new first-floor window would have a greater impact on his privacy and amenity compared to the current window placements due to its proximity to his property. Mr X said the current nearest distance from window-to-window placements was about 22 metres and the planning permission reduced this to about 15 metres.
27. The Council sent Mr X its Stage 2 response on 19 October 2020. The Council maintained its stance the window placements would not be an unacceptable loss of privacy or amenity.
28. Mr X’s neighbours made a second planning application on 19 October 2020, Application 2, which changed the approved plans from Application 1. Mr X’s neighbours did not materially change the first-floor extension or window placement in this second application.
29. Mr X objected to Application 2 in November 2020. Mr X reiterated his objections against Application 1.
30. The Council officer completed his report of the Application 2 on 15 December 2020. The Council officer’s report said:
• This application focused on adding render to the previous planning application. The Council had already approved the rest of the development.
• A neighbour had objected to the planning application because of concerns about loss of privacy and amenity.
• The application would create overshadowing but this would not be significant enough to refuse the application.
• The window (fenestration) on the first-floor side extension would have views of the amenity space of neighbouring properties. However, the views would be oblique and would not cause enough harm to refuse the application.
31. The Council granted planning application for Application 2 on 15 December 2020.

Analysis

32. Mr X complained the Council did not consider his neighbours planning application correctly. Mr X says the approved planning applications will impact his privacy and amenity due to the window placement on a first-floor side extension.
33. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Neither are we a court, and so cannot determine or define planning law.
34. The Ombudsman must decide if the Council has considered the relevant legislation and policies in making its decision to approve Application 1 and Application 2. If the Council has considered the relevant policies and reached a suitable decision in line with these policies, the Ombudsman cannot find fault.
35. Mr X considers the Council did not complete a satisfactory review of his objections, by failing to view any overlooking from his property. The Council has no duty to visit a neighbouring property as part of a planning application review. I do not find fault with the Council not attending Mr X’s property when completing its planning permission report.
36. The Council officer’s reports for both Application 1 and Application 2 considered Mr X’s objections to the planning applications. Both Application 1 and Application 2 considered Mr X’s concerns such as the impact on his privacy and amenity.
37. The Council officer’s reports for both Application 1 and Application 2 specifically considered the impact of the first-floor window on the proposed side extension. Both reports decided the impact on Mr X’s privacy would not be enough to reject the planning applications. The Council officers decided this because of the oblique nature of the overlooking.
38. The Council’s policies outline that a 20-metre distance should be observed in direct window to window facings or facings of less than a 30-degree angle. Mr X has provided me with photographs from his property showing the facing towards the proposed extension. These photographs show a minimum angle of 45 degrees from Mr X’s property to the proposed first-floor window. The Council officer’s decision that overlooking from the window placement would be oblique is in line with the Council’s policies. I do not find fault with the Council.
39. It is also of note the scale and size of the window placement on the proposed extension is consistent with the rear windows currently installed on Mr X’s neighbour’s property. The Council officer also commented in the report for Application 1 that the first-floor extension would block overlooking from the existing two first-floor windows to Mr X’s property. The Council confirmed this within its response to Mr X’s complaint.
40. On review of Mr X’s evidence, there is no fault with this comment. The approved first-floor extension does block any overlooking into Mr X’s property from two pre-existing first floor windows. Both of these pre-existing windows share the same angle, if not narrower, to Mr X’s property as the proposed first-floor side extension. I do not find fault with the Council’s comments or decision.
41. The potential impact on the value of a neighbouring house is not a material consideration for planning applications. The Council was not at fault for failing to consider this.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault in the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman