Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application. We do not intend to investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council granted planning permission on the wrong assumption that her home is on higher ground than her neighbour’s property. She also says it failed to consider her amenity.
2. Miss X says she will lose light and her property has been devalued because of the extension. She wants the Council to make the neighbour to change the extension from a gable to a flat roof.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Miss X including photographs and discussed the complaint with her.
5. I also considered the Council’s responses to her complaint and the planning information on its website.
6. Miss X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2016, Miss X’s neighbour applied to the Council for planning permission to build a replacement house on the site next to her home. In 2017, they applied for permission to demolish existing garages and build a single storey rear extension.
8. The Planning Officer visited the site. She also visited Miss X’s home in response to her request. However, no one was home at the time. The Planning Officer says while she was there, she noted there were steps up to the front of Miss X’s home. She also noted the boundary between Miss X’s home and the application site had a brick wall with fencing above.
9. The Planning Officer prepared a report on application. This states Miss X’s home is on land which is about 1 metre higher that the application site.
10. The report also confirms there are no first-floor windows in the side of Miss X’s property which is nearest to the application site. The nearest part of application property is 2 metres from the boundary with Miss X’s land, and the boundary has a brick wall about 2 metres high with a fence above. The proposed pitch roof to the extension will be 4.5 metres.
11. The Planning Officer’s opinion was in term of loss of privacy, overshadowing and overbearing, the proposed development would not have a significant detrimental impact because:
• the proposed development is single storey
• the separation distance between the buildings
• the lack of windows or roof lights facing Miss X’s home; and
• Miss X’s home is on higher ground
12. The report also explains the relevant national and local policies and why the Planning Officer considers the application is acceptable.
13. The Planning Officer recommended the application for approval. A senior officer agreed with the recommendation and approved the application under the Council’s scheme of delegated authority.

Assessment

14. Miss X confirms she was aware of the planning application but chose not to object to it. She says the Council granted planning permission because it wrongly assumed her property was on higher ground than the application site.
15. The Council’s policy on house extensions says extensions or changes to houses will normally be allowed provided such development:
• does not harm the reasonable privacy and adequate daylight and sunlight for neighbours
• is not unduly prominent from neighbouring properties
• retains the character and style of the existing property
• does not result in a cramped appearance; and
• uses external materials that match or are in harmony with the existing building
16. The Planning Officer considered the extension:
• respects the original house in style, design, and materials
• will not appear excessively prominent
• will be constructed in matching or harmonising materials
• is in keeping with the character of the area; and
• the extension will be largely screened from wider views
17. However, the Council accepts the Planning Officer wrongly assumed the application site was lower than Miss X’s home.
18. We must therefore consider whether it is likely, on balance, that the Council would have refused the planning application but for this error.
19. The Planning Officer’s report contains several reasons why she considered the application acceptable. The matter does not rest solely on the mistaken difference in site levels.
20. In response to Miss X’s complaint the Council has reviewed the application and the Officer’s report.
21. It noted:
• the nearest part of the extension will be lower that Miss X’s existing extension
• there is a significant separation distance between the extension and the main part of Miss X’s house
• the part of her home nearest the application site has no windows
• her first storey windows will look down onto the new extension
• there will be fewer windows and a reduced area of glazing in the new extension facing her home than previously
• the new development will be a more attractive construction than the previously; and
• there is an existing wall with a fence on top of it between the two properties.
22. The Council decided that considering the above, the new development will not have a significant impact on Miss X’s home in terms of overshadowing, overlooking, and overbearing.
23. Miss X has provided photos of the extension taken from her property. These show the extension is separated from the nearest wall of Miss X’s home, which is a car port. The Council refers to the distance being about ten metres. There is also a wall with fencing above and vegetation.
24. Having considered the above I believe it unlikely the Council would have come to a different decision on the application even if it had not assumed Miss X’s home on higher ground.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I will not investigate this complaint. I consider it is unlikely that further investigation will add to that carried out by the Council. And we cannot achieve the alterations to the roof design which Miss X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman