Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making process when determining a planning application for a new dormer window in a nearby property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation. Other claimed fault in the planning process does not cause such significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a house backing on to the rear of another property. The neighbour sought permission to install a dormer window into their roof, facing Mr X’s property. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to notify him of the planning application;
2. gave insufficient recognition to his objections to the development;
3. failed to consider the application at committee;
4. granted the permission contrary to the plans for the original development;
5. pre-determined the application when the planning officer told the applicant they would be recommending its approval;
6. incorrectly said views of the development would be limited to members of the public.
2. Mr X says the development will have a detrimental impact on his property through increased overlooking and loss of privacy. He says the dormer window allows neighbours direct views of his garden. Mr X is concerned it creates a precedent for other properties in the same block to be granted similar dormer windows. He wants the Council to rescind the planning decision and keep the property’s roof windows as originally permitted.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him of the planning application for the dormer window. He says he heard about it from his neighbour, who had received a notification letter. If we were to investigate this issue, we could not say whether there was Council fault in its notification for Mr X. It is unlikely we would determine the reason why Mr X did not receive a letter. In any event, even if there was fault in the Council’s notification process here, it did not cause any injustice to Mr X. He did not lose an opportunity to object to the application as part of the usual planning process, so there are no grounds for us to investigate this issue.
7. Mr X considers the Council gave insufficient recognition to his objections. The planning officer’s report summarises the objections, including Mr X’s, and responds to them. The objections raised concerns about overlooking and the application setting a precedent for similar development to the other houses in the terrace, and stated only ‘conservation-type’ rooflights should be allowed based on previous permissions. The officer visited the site and took the view that the concerns raised did not give grounds for a refusal of the permission. They recognised the dormer window would increase overlooking towards Mr X’s property. But they noted the room served by the window is a bedroom, which would be used less than a general living space such as a living room, meaning long periods of overlooking from the window would be less likely. They also noted there are several existing windows in the same elevation and considered the increase in overlooking from the new window would not be so significant to justify a refusal.
8. The report shows the Council’s officer properly considered the relevant policies and information when reaching their professional judgement. We can only criticise a council’s decision if there has been fault in the process used to make it which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different decision. There is not enough evidence of such fault here to warrant an investigation. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the officer’s views, but it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Mr X says the Council failed to consider the application at the planning committee, rather than by delegated officer decision. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in not referring the application to that committee under the terms of its scheme of delegation. None of the conditions for that to happen under the policy were met. There are no grounds to pursue this part of the complaint.
10. Mr X is concerned the Council granted the permission contrary to the plans for the original development. None of the earlier permissions for the property could condition the property to prevent an applicant submitting the 2021 application to insert a dormer window. Once the 2021 application was received and validated, the Council had a duty to consider it on its own merits. While earlier permissions provide relevant context, they do not bind a council to only permit development entirely in keeping with them. If it were otherwise, no alterations to existing property would be possible. The Council placed a condition on an earlier permission so any additional or amended windows in the building’s elevations would require a full planning application, rather than being allowed under ‘permitted development’ rules. That is the extent to which councils can keep control of for alterations to an existing property.
11. Mr X says the planning officer pre-determined the application by telling the applicant’s contractor he would be recommending approval. It was that officer’s role to decide whether they would recommend it for refusal or to be granted. But they did not make the planning decision. They referred the application to their manager, whose decision it was to grant the permission. There is not enough evidence to show the planning officer’s communications with the contractor or applicant amounted to pre-determination of the application or had any bearing on the final planning decision. If the officer had received further information before the decision date which altered their view to recommend granting the permission, they had the option to alter that view and re-advise the applicant accordingly.
12. Mr X says the planning officer’s report incorrectly said public views of the development would be limited, but it is visible from a passageway going between properties which is used by the public. While the passageway is used as a right of way, it is not clear whether it forms part of the public highway. The design and scale of the new rear dormer is similar to the property’s original front dormer, which can be seen from the road. So the rear dormer’s visibility to users of the passageway is unlikely to have altered the decision to grant it planning permission. In any event, even if this aspect of the officer report was incorrect, it does not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X. His key concern is the impact of the development on his property, not on the public realm. Some members of the public seeing the dormer window from the passageway is not a significant personal injustice to Mr X.
13. I understand the development has started. Mr X wants the Council to rescind the 2021 planning permission and keep the windows as originally installed. But we cannot, whether or not a development has started, order councils to cancel granted permissions and get developers to retain their properties in their original forms. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks here, which is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning decision process to warrant us investigating;
• any fault relating to the Council’s assessment of the public visibility of the development from a nearby passageway does not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X which would justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman