Summary: Mr B complained that, in granting planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s property, the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his amenity resulting in loss of privacy. We found no fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that, in granting planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s property, the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his amenity. He says that, as a result, he has suffered loss of privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B together with the information available on the Council’s website.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

Key facts

8. Mr B’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a two-storey extension to his property and second floor roof extension with a rear dormer window. Mr B objected to the proposals raising issues including loss of privacy.
9. The planning officer visited the site and prepared a detailed report for the delegated decision-maker setting out the planning history of the site, the relevant policies and residents’ objections. The officer recommended that planning permission be granted.
10. The application was considered by the delegated decision maker who granted planning permission.

Analysis

Site visit

11. Mr B says the case officer was at fault in failing to visit his property to consider the impact of the proposed development on his amenity.
12. The local planning authority has no legal obligation to inspect the site before determining a planning application. While it is normal practice for the case officer to inspect the site itself, it is not usual for the officer to visit neighbouring properties unless it is not possible to see the application site and its surroundings adequately from the applicant’s property or public vantage points.
13. Having considered the officer’s report, I am satisfied he was aware of the relationship between the application site and existing properties when making his recommendation.

Loss of privacy

14. Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the development on his amenity, particularly in terms of loss of privacy.
15. The Council must weigh material planning considerations in favour of the application with the objections to it. The fact that there are objections does not necessarily mean the application should be refused. It is a balance between the expectation of neighbours not to be adversely affected by a development near their property and the expectation of a landowner that he can build on his own land.
16. It is recognised and accepted that some planning permissions will adversely affect neighbouring properties. However, the test is whether the proposed development would reduce neighbours’ amenity below an acceptable level. This is a subjective test which depends on the character of the area and the nature of the proposed development.
17. The case officer specifically considered the impact of the proposed development on Mr B’s amenity in his report. He stated there was a separation distance of 21.5 metres from the closest point of the proposed second floor and roof extensions to Mr B’s property. The property is set at an angle to the site, so the proposed rear windows do not face directly towards Mr B’s property. In these circumstances, the officer concluded the proposed extensions did not result in such a degree of overlooking as to warrant refusal of the application.
18. There is no legally required separation distance between dwellings. Many Councils have supplementary planning policies which set out what they consider to be an appropriate separation distance between directly facing windows. However, this was not applicable here because the windows are not directly facing.
19. It was a matter for officers’ professional judgement whether any overlooking was at an acceptable level. In the absence of administrative fault, there are no grounds to question their decision that any overlooking was not so significant as to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

Impact on the character of the area

20. Mr B also says the development is too large and is not in character with neighbouring properties.
21. The case officer considered this issue in his report and concluded there would be no significant impact on the character and appearance of the area.
22. When considering this issue, officers will consider the impact on the street scene from public vantage points and not from private land. This is because the impact on neighbours’ amenity is considered separately. I find no grounds to question the officer’s professional judgement on this.

Impact on the value of Mr B’s property

23. Mr B says the Council failed to consider the impact of the proposed development on the value of his property. Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration and so is not something the Council could take into consideration when deciding the planning application.

Conclusion

24. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application, including the impact of the proposal on Mr B’s amenity and on the character of the area. Having done so, it was satisfied there were no grounds to warrant a refusal of planning permission. As the Council’s decision was reached through proper process, we cannot question the merits of its decision however much Mr B disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.
26. I have completed my investigation on the basis I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman