Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says the Council failed to refer the application to the planning committee. She also says the Council did not enforce against breaches of the planning permission and allowed a second application for a minor amendment.
2. Mrs X says:
• her privacy is reduced
• the view from her rear windows and garden is unsightly; and
• her property has lost value.

She wants the neighbouring property restored to its original form. if this is not possible, she wants compensation for the loss of property value.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land
7. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
8. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
9. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
10. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal

What happened

11. Mrs X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a single storey rear extension, two storey side extension and first floor built over the existing single storey garage. Mrs X’s garden backs on to the garden of the application site.
12. The parish council objected to the proposals, as did neighbours, although Mrs X did not.
13. The Council’s Constitution sets out the criteria for referring planning applications to the planning committee for decision, and for officer’s making decision under delegated authority. I am satisfied in this case the application in this case did not meet the criteria for referral to committee and was therefore determined under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
14. The planning officer visited the site and wrote a report on the proposal.
15. The report sets out the proposed scheme, the relevant policies and a summary of the objections received. It does not specifically address the impact of the development on Mrs X’s privacy. However, the Officer is satisfied the scheme met the Council policies as they consider the location of the house, and the size of the plot allowed the extension without adversely affecting the neighbour’s amenity.
16. The loss of a view or property value is not a material planning consideration which can be considered by the local planning authority. The planning officer considered the proposed scheme was in line with the relevant Council policies. While Mrs X may disagree with the assessment this is not evidence of fault.
17. Once planning permission has been given, the building must comply with the approved plans. Minor departures from those plans can, however, be regularised by asking the Council to agree non-material amendments.
18. The applicant decided to make changes to the extension. He sought permission for changes to the materials to be used, changes to the windows including 3 rooflights to the rear ground floor extension.
19. The Council publicised the application. The parish council and neighbours including Mrs X objected. Her objections are summarised in the Planning Officer’s report include:
• the applicant is breaching the planning permission
• the side window breaches another neighbour’s privacy
• the use of render is out of keeping with the area
• no consideration is given to properties behind the application site
• the position of the rear windows invades her privacy
20. The Planning Officer wrote a report on the scheme. They noted:
• the Council’s Urban Design team had no objection to the change of materials
• the increased use of render does not cause detrimental harm to the host property or the wider street scene
• the first-floor bathroom window will be obscure glazed
• the repositioning of the rear windows and the insertion of the rooflights into the single storey rear extension does not have any further impact on Mrs X’s property than the original, accepted scheme.
21. The Officer recommended approval, and again the Council agreed and granted permission under its scheme of delegation. It included a condition on the planning permission that the first-floor bathroom windows in the rear elevation (facing Mrs X’s home) and the west facing elevation must have obscure glazing. These windows are not to open below 1.7 metres above the floor of the rooms in which they are installed.
22. When planning authorities receive planning applications, they must consider relevant planning matters in reaching a decision. While the planning authority must consider all those that are relevant, it has discretion about what weight to give to them. When considering complaints, we are not an appeal body. Our role is only to consider whether the planning authority acted correctly by considering relevant planning matters, not to reach our own view of them where there is no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered her neighbour’s planning applications. Consideration was given to the possible overlooking of her property. This Council decided this would be overcome by ensuring the relevant windows are obscured glazed and non-opening below 1.7m.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman