Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault leading to significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains that planning permission has been granted for a neighbouring property to add an extra floor with gable and Juliet balcony. Mr X says this overlooks his garden and house.
2. He says that incorrect information was considered during the application process. And the Council failed to consider objections from the town council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure,’ which we call ‘fault.’ We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice.’ We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made.
7. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement says it will place a site notice near application sites or write to the occupiers or owners of property which adjoin those sites.
8. The Council advised Mr X about the application as his property is opposite the development site on the other side of a road which runs behind his rear garden.
9. In response to a neighbour’s complaint, the Council confirms the development site has open land to the side and rear. The Council acknowledges it now believes it should have erected a site notice as the owners of the land are unknown. However, Mr X was made aware. So the lack of a site notice did not cause Mr X any personal injustice.
10. The Planning Officer visited the site and wrote a report on the proposal. The report includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from Mr X which included:
• the glazed gable will overlook the garden and rear of their property
• the proposed scheme will dominate the street scene
• the existing roofline minimises obstruction of views beyond
• the town council supported the application if suitable screening was erected
11. The report referred to the impact on Mr X’s property. It notes the development site is at a higher level than Mr X’s neighbour. It also states the gable is angled towards the road, rather than directly opposite the neighbours’ property. And the closest neighbour’s rear wall was about twenty-six metres from the proposed gable. This, with some existing overlooking from another neighbour, led the Planning Officer to decide that overlooking from the new proposal would not worsen to such a degree to warrant refusing the application.
12. I acknowledge that, while the gable is technically angled toward the road, it does afford views across the road towards Mr X’s property. However, the Officer acknowledged the overlooking, but her professional opinion is the degree of overlooking is not increased to a point where it justifies refusal of the application. While I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council, this is a professional opinion, made having considered the plans and visited the application site. Therefore, I cannot criticise the officer’s view.
13. The Planning Officer also considered the impact of the development on the character of the area, noting the styles of properties in the road. She concluded the development would not be out of character.
14. The report also refers to the Parish Council’s comments which refers to appropriate screening. I do not agree with Mr X’s view that the Council ignored the Parish Council’s comments. The report explains why a condition requiring screening would not meet the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, the Council has considered the Parish Council’s comments and detailed why it will not impose conditions.
15. The Planning Officer recommended approving the application. A senior Officer agreed and approved the application under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
16. Mr X clearly disagrees with the Council’s decision, but that does not make it wrong. It is for planning officers and/or committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
17. The Planning Officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the Officer has made their recommendation. While the report refers to a front gable and also a front dormer, it is clear to the reader that the Officer understands the proposed scheme which is a glazed gable. I do not consider this affected the outcome of the application.
18. Following approval of the application, the homeowner applied to the Council for a non material amendment (NMA). This included changing the glazed gable to have opening doors with a glass balustrade. This does not give access to any external balcony space. The case officer report for the NMA application refers to the gable to having French doors and a Juliet balcony. The Officer confirmed the changes to the glazed area required an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This enables an applicant to apply to develop land without compliance with conditions attached to an existing, previous planning permission. 
19. The Council received a S73 application. It notified neighbours including Mr X of the proposed change to a Juliet balcony. It did not receive any objections. The Case Officer prepared a report which lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the Officer has made their recommendation. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the S73 application.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman