Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr J, complains the Council failed to consider the impact of his neighbour’s planning proposal on his property.
2. He says he suffers loss of light and privacy.

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 Mr J and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received an application from Mr J’s neighbour to demolish a conservatory and build a single storey extension. Also, to change the roof and build a dormer window to the rear.
7. The Council wrote to the neighbours including Mr J. It did not receive any objections to the scheme.
8. A Planning Officer wrote a report assessing the proposed development. The report refers to relevant local and national planning policies and considers the main planning issues for deciding the application. The Planning Officer notes concerns about the proposed changes to the roof. Changing the roof from hip to gable unbalances the pair of semi-detached houses. However, the harm is mitigated by being visible from only a short section of the street.
9. The report notes the applicant has a fall-back position in that the proposed plans for the roof alterations are likely to be permitted development.
10. The Officer considers the single storey extension complies with planning guidance. It is 3.15m deep and set in 0.15m from the boundary with Mr J’s property. The officer states the distances from surrounding properties (including Mr J’s) are sufficient to prevent significant overdominance and overshadowing. They recommended the Council approve the application.
11. A senior officer reviewed the report and approved the application under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
12. Mr J says the Council failed to consider the 45-degree test when assessing the impact of the scheme on his home.
13. The Council confirms the 45-degree code is guidance and not a rule. It also confirms the extension only exceeds that which can be achieved without planning permission under permitted development by 15 centimetres. For this reason, the Council considers the application acceptable. It also believes if the application had been refused it would likely have been granted on appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr J’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the application. The Planning Officer’s report shows the Council considered relevant policies and explains why it approved the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman