Summary: We find no fault by the Council in how it handled planning matters regarding Mr X’s neighbour’s application for an extension.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider the planning application submitted by his neighbour for a two storey extension. He says the Council did not properly consider its policies when considering the impact on his home and on the conservation area. He also says the Council’s actions have affected his mental health and the extension will overlook his home and garden when built.

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 discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application to extend their home in 2019. This involved single storey and two storey extensions.
6. Mr X objected with the assistance of a planning consultant about the impact on his privacy from overlooking from two upper windows. He also referred to overshadowing, the development being overbearing, and its situation near the boundary. He said that nine trees and a tree with a tree preservation order would be lost. In his view there would be an impact on the conservation area, and the widening of the gates to the front would affect highway safety.
7. The Council’s planning officer visited Mr X and considered the impact of the development on his home. Mr X’s neighbour submitted amended plans twice. The changes included removing changes to the gates, relocating the garage, removal of Juliet balconies and obscure glazing to first floor windows. The height of the roof ridge was also reduced. The Council reconsulted residents about the changed plans. A second planning officer visited Mr X to assess the impact on him. Mr X sent further objections to the Council commenting on the revised plans.
8. The Council then considered the revised application and approved it. The Council’s report recommending approval noted the objections Mr X and other neighbours had made.
9. The Council’s report specifically considered the impact on Mr X’s property with regard to overlooking. It said that two case officers had visited Mr X to see the relationship with the proposed development. It noted the most recent plan increased the distance from the boundary and included obscure glazed windows to the first floor rear windows. This reduced the likelihood of overlooking. While both properties had views into each others’ gardens to an extent, the privacy distances were adequate in view of the distance between the gardens.
10. The Council’s report considered the potential for overbearing by the new development. It noted that the most recent plan meant the ridge height now increased by 0.9m and therefore did not consider the increase would lead to a demonstrable loss of daylight or sunlight in neighbouring properties.
11. The Council’s report considered the impact on the streetscene and conservation area. It referred to its policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. The Council noted the property was behind a boundary wall, within mature trees, and was set back and was not particularly visible from the front. The Council’s conservation officer had initially objected to the planned development because the first floor extension would be obtrusive and harmful to the views along the road. The officer also considered the works to widen the gates would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. However, following changes to the height of the roofline, and comparison with other extended properties nearby, the conservation officer discussed the plan with the planning officer and agreed the impact on the conservation area would be less than substantial.
12. The Council’s report considered the impact on trees. Eight trees were likely to be removed as a result of the development. None of these were subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The Council’s arboricultural officer did not raise objections regarding the removal of trees, but suggested a condition regarding preservation of remaining trees.
13. The Council’s report considered the impact of the development on its highways. It notes that problem regarding visibility at the entrance were no longer an issue as this element was now removed.
14. Following the Council’s approval of the application, Mr X complained to the Council through its complaint procedure as he said that the second case officer who visited was rude and aggressive, making personal comments about his property. He said the Council had not properly considered the application because it had not taken account of its impact on the conservation area and the impact on his privacy. He did not consider the Council had properly taken account of planning policies. He also said that the process had taken a very long time. He stated that he was unable to see revised plans on the Council’s website when it was consulting residents.
15. The Council responded at stage one and apologised for its delay. It said that the case officer had visited to consider the impact on Mr X and had tried to answer his questions, but had recently taken on the case. The Council denied that the case officer made personal comments and said that Mr X had not complained regarding the issue following the visit. The Council did not uphold this part of the complaint.
16. The Council said that as part of its process determining the application the case officer considered relevant national and local planning polices, taking account of any material considerations and comments received. As part of the process the Council sought amendments to address concerns by consultees. As a result the plan was changed to reduce the height of the extension, the garage was relocated and obscure glazing included to prevent overlooking. The Council noted Mr X had responded to further consultation on the revised plans, and so in its view he was fully engaged in the process.
17. The Council stated that the conservation officer agreed that the latest amended plans would not lead to an unacceptable visual impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Council had addressed the impact of overlooking by requiring a condition that the first floor windows must be obscure glazed. While it noted Mr X disagreed with its decision, in its view it had properly and professionally considered the application.
18. The Council noted Mr X said he could not access plans on its website. The Council said it had investigated this and had resolved the problem. It apologised for the inconvenience but said it was satisfied that the information had been available to Mr X, and it noted he had commented on the revised plans.
19. Mr X complained further, repeating his concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application. He said the Council continued to ignore his questions and much of its report was subjective. He said the conservation officer had not agreed the final plans. In his view the development would be visible in the conservation area. He also disputed the Council’s view of the case officer’s comments.
20. The Council replied at stage two noting Mr X disagreed but it said in its view it had considered the application properly in line with its procedures and good practice.

Analysis

21. I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of the planning application. The Council addressed the concerns Mr X had raised including issues regarding overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light and the impact on the conservation area. While I note Mr X disagrees, I consider the Council properly assessed the material planning considerations in accordance with its policies and national guidance. It was open to the Council to reach the view it did regarding the impact on the conservation area. As I explain in paragraph 2, as there is no apparent fault in the way the decision was reached, I cannot question the decision.
22. Mr X complained regarding a case officer’s comments which he considered were rude. The Council has rejected this view. As the accounts differ and there is insufficient evidence of the conversation, I am unable to come to a conclusion regarding this part of Mr X’s complaint.
23. Mr X complained that he was unable to access plans on its website when he was objecting to amended plans. The Council says that there were problems accessing certain plans, but it resolved this within a few hours once it was noted. It also says that Mr X was aware of the changes to plans and made comments. Therefore, while inconvenient, this did not affect his ability to comment or the Council’s consideration of the impact on amenity. I do not consider this issue was significant or that it prevented Mr X being able to respond.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have not found fault by the Council causing injustice. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman