Summary: Mr B complains that there was fault in the way the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to extend the neighbouring property. The Council did not keep adequate records of the representations received from Mr B, and there was delay in responded to his complaint. However, the Ombudsman has not found that this affected the Council’s consideration of the application, so we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council:
• did not properly consider the loss of light to his kitchen/dining room when granting planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s house;
• was inconsistent in its treatment of the application when compared with another application in the same road; and
• did not properly consider whether the neighbouring property could accommodate parking for three vehicles.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered Mr B’s written complaint and supporting papers. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its response together with the complaint correspondence, planning papers, and planning policies. I have had regard to relevant legislation and guidance. I have also sent Mr B and the Council a draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and Administrative background

6. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use). Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land.
7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission.
9. General planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g., in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). However, it is for the decision-maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

What happened

10. Mr B lives in a semi-detached house in a residential street mostly characterised by semi-detached houses. In most cases there are single-storey garages or extensions up to the boundary between properties, but there are also two-storey extensions.
11. Mr B’s house was extended in the 1980s with a single-storey side and rear extension incorporating a garage around a metre in from the boundary and utility room. As a result of those works, Mr B’s house has a kitchen/diner with a side-facing window facing his neighbour’s garage, and a small rear-facing window. A utility room extends around three metres from rear wall of the kitchen/diner. There is a shed to the rear of the utility room.
12. The neighbouring non-adjoining semi-detached house (the neighbouring house) has a single-storey garage on the common boundary with Mr B’s house. In 2020, Mr B’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a part single-storey part two-storey side and rear extension and conversion of the existing garage.
13. The Council notified neighbours of the applications and Mr B raised objections concerning:
• the loss of daylight and sunlight to his kitchen/diner, and his “Right to Light”;
• the strength of the foundations and the impact on his drains close to the boundary; and
• whether the works would cross his boundary.
14. The case officer visited Mr B and took photos from outside his home, showing the kitchen window and its relationship to the neighbouring house. The same day, Mr B sent the case officer photos showing the window from inside, plans of the internal layout of his house and the dimensions of the rooms. Before a decision was reached on the application, a new planning officer took over the case, so Mr B sent the same information to him.
15. The new case officer prepared a report on the application. The report described the site and surroundings, and the proposals. It set out the relevant local and national planning policies. It identified the main planning issues - the impact on: character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area; the amenity of neighbouring residents; parking and ecology. It then went on to consider each of these issues with reference to policy.
16. The report discussed the impact on Mr B’s house. It was felt that the proposal would not appear dominant relative to Mr B’s house because this already had a rear extension and outbuilding. For the same reason, it would not lead to a loss of sunlight to the rear garden or amenity areas. Moreover, as the extension would not have side windows, it would not cause any loss of privacy to Mr B’s house.
17. The report also set out Mr B’s concerns and the officer’s response. In response to Mr B’s concerns about loss of light to his kitchen/diner, it said that as the proposal did not impact on any principal rooms of either neighbour, on balance it was not considered that this would result in a significant loss of light in amenity terms.
18. Mr B then complained to the Council. There was a small delay in the Council’s response to Mr B’s initial complaint for which it apologised. However, the Council responded to each of the concerns that Mr B raised and concluded that his concerns had been taken into consideration.
19. Mr B submitted a complaint at the second stage of the Council’s procedures. As he did not hear back from the Council, he complained to the Ombudsman, after which the Council provided its further complaint response. The Council again did not consider that there was fault in the way that it had considered the application. Although there was an error in the date for submitting representations on the site notice, it did not consider that this affected the outcome because Mr B had been able to comment, and his comments had been considered.
20. The Council accepted however that there had been substantial delay in responding to Mr B’s second stage complaint. It apologised and offered Mr B £200 in recognition of the delay and Mr B’s time and trouble, which would be in line with the Ombudsman’s recommended remedies.

My assessment

21. Mr B has raised a range of concerns during the course of the complaints process and the Council has responded to those concerns. I do not propose to revisit that correspondence here but have addressed the concerns set out in the statement of complaint above.

Failure to properly consider the loss of light to the kitchen/dining room

22. Mr B does not consider that the Council took proper account of the impact of the two-storey extension on the side window of his kitchen/diner.
23. The Council does not have a record of the emails and photos that Mr B sent the case officer following the site visit. That is fault. This was a response from a consultee on the application and the law requires that his should have been kept on the planning file.
24. The case officer also took no notes during his site visit, though he took photographs. Although, there is no requirement to carry out a site visit, the Ombudsman considers that, where a visit has been undertaken, not keeping a written record of that visit is fault.
25. The Council has explained in response to Mr B’s complaint that it considers that the officer decided that the rear window of the kitchen/diner was the principal window. The officer no longer works for the Council, so I am unable to seek his comments. However, from what is stated in the report, this does not seem correct. Rather, the report indicates that the case officer did not consider the kitchen/diner to be a principal room. The officer’s report states:

“The proposed works would not impose a loss of light to either neighbour in terms of rear elevations. With the proposal not impacting on any principal rooms of either neighbour, on balance the proposed works are not considered to amount to a significant loss of light in amenity terms)”.

26. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on House Extensions seeks to avoid “excessive loss of natural light into principal rooms”. It goes on to clarify that:

“Principal rooms are those rooms within the dwelling which are the focus of the main functions of living within that dwelling and comprise the following:

• Lounge
• Dining room (or dining kitchen, if no separate dining room can be provided)
• the two largest bedrooms.”
1. The plans that Mr B sent to the case officer show the kitchen/diner, a separate dining room and a separate lounge. Mr B referred to these in his email as the front and rear lounge.
2. Having regard to the Council’s SPD, therefore, the kitchen/diner would not be regarded as a principal room because it would a separate dining room could be provided. Accordingly, I can see no fault in the officer’s statement that the proposals would not cause excessive loss of light to principal rooms. It was then for the officer to decide whether the loss of light to a non-principal room was acceptable – that was a judgment for the officer to make.
3. I appreciate Mr B’s concerns over loss of light, but I cannot see that the officer’s report is incorrect in the way it assessed the impact on Mr B’s amenity with regard to policy, so I cannot question the merits of the decision in this regard.

Inconsistent treatment of the application

30. Mr B considers that the way the application was considered was inconsistent with another application in the same road. In that case, the officer’s report stated that the adjacent neighbour did not have any primary main room windows in their side gable wall and therefore the proposal was not considered overbearing.
31. For the reasons set out above, I do not consider that the Council was at fault in determining that the kitchen/diner was not a principal room. I do not therefore consider the treatment of the two applications to be inconsistent.

Failure to properly consider whether the neighbouring property could accommodate parking for three vehicles

32. Mr B does not consider that the site can safely accommodate three vehicles.
33. The officer’s report explains that the Council’s highways department was consulted on the provision of three parking spaces. It considered that reversing onto the road was a similar manoeuvre to what other residents already undertake. There were therefore minimal road safety considerations which would warrant objecting to the proposal.
34. I see no fault here. The Council has considered this matter and decided that the proposal was acceptable in terms of highways safety.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. The Council has already offered Mr B £200 in recognition of the delay in responding to his complaint – this is a suitable response to the injustice to Mr B.
36. The Council has also agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation that, within one month of the final decision on this complaint, it remind officers of the legal requirement to keep consultation responses on the planning file and that the Ombudsman considers it fault not to keep written records of site meetings.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have closed my investigation on the basis that actions agreed above are a suitable remedy for the injustice to Ms B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman