Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council determined a planning application for a household extension and raised pergola.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council has approved a planning application for an extension to his neighbour’s house, despite the plans not accurately describing the proposal and relationship with his property. He says the Council also failed to properly consider his objections to it.
2. Mr B says that as a result of the Council’s decision, there will be increased overlooking of his property and loss of privacy. He says he has also been put to time and trouble objecting to the proposal and complaining about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• considered information on the Council’s website; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Overview

7. Mr B’s neighbour applied to the Council for planning permission for a single storey rear extension and a raised pergola.
8. The houses are on a hill and Mr B’s property is lower than his neighbour’s property.
9. Mr B submitted a detailed objection to the proposal. He said that the plans failed to accurately capture the relationship between the properties and the proposal would cause increased overlooking and loss of privacy.
10. Following discussions with the Council, Mr B’s neighbour submitted revised plans which included increasing the height of the fence between the properties, obscure glazing to a side window and a reduction in the size of the pergola. The Council then carried out a site visit to assess the proposal.
11. Mr B submitted another objection. He explained in detail how he considered, despite the revisions, the proposal would still result in additional overlooking and loss of privacy. Mr B gave a detailed analysis of the plans to show that they were inaccurate and misrepresented the relationship between the properties.
12. The case officer’s report on the proposal states that measurements were taken during a site visit, and it was determined that the plans were sufficiently accurate and any minor variations would not be material in the determination of the application.
13. The Council decided to grant planning permission.
14. Mr B considers the Council failed to properly consider his objections and granted planning permission on the basis of inaccurate drawings.

Analysis

15. When we investigate a complaint about a planning decision, we consider whether there has been any administrative fault in the way the application has been decided which may call into question the decision. We do not consider the application afresh on its merits; we look only at the process followed by the council when it reached the decision.
16. When a council considers a planning application, it should consider the impact it will have on neighbouring properties. But it is not the case that councils must refuse planning permission for development that will have an adverse impact on other properties. Councils must assess the degree of impact and decide if it is so great that it should refuse the application. This is a judgement the council makes taking into account all the relevant information. Provided the council carries out the assessment properly then we cannot question the decision it has made.

Accuracy of plans

17. Mr B considers the plans do not comply with the Council’s own drawing standards. The standards state that drawings should be of a suitable standard and include all of the information necessary to describe the development proposal in detail and to enable the application to be assessed. They also state that every elevation of the building should be included with the planning application.
18. The eastern elevation was not included with this application. The Council says it was satisfied that sufficient information was received within the drawings to assess the development and therefore it decided not to require an eastern elevation. This is a decision it was entitled to reach.
19. Mr B considers the plans are not accurate and misrepresent the relationship between the properties. I have considered the plans and photographs alongside Mr B’s arguments.
20. The photographs show that the garden of the application site slopes down towards Mr B’s home, and also down the length of the garden. Mr B considers it was not possible for officers to properly assess the proposal because the plans do not accurately show how ground levels change across the site.
21. The Council has acknowledged there are variations in ground levels across the site which may not be accurately depicted on the plans. It says that most planning applications do not include a detailed topographic survey showing changes in ground levels. It has explained that when assessing planning applications for extensions to existing dwellings, it looks primarily at the relationship of the proposed extension to the existing building. I am satisfied that the height of the extension and pergola can be determined from the plans by comparing them to the existing building. Any deviation from the approved plans will be enforceable.
22. Mr B considers the plans make the boundary fence appear taller because they do not show that the ground slopes downwards. The plans show that a specific section of the 1.04 metre fence will be replaced with a 1.4 metre fence; they do not show how the ground levels change.
23. When the officer visited the site, he took photographs which show the sloping ground and that Mr B’s garden is overlooked from the neighbouring property. It would have been possible to assess how views would be affected by the raised pergola and how this impact would be reduced by increasing the height of part of the fence. The officer’s report refers to the existing views over the boundary fence and the impact of increasing the fence height. I am satisfied that the Council was aware of the variation in ground levels and that it had enough information to enable it to properly consider the relationship between the properties and the impact of the proposal.

Objections

24. One of Mr B’s objections related to the view from the snug window in the proposed extension. He was concerned that there was a potential line of sight to his daughter’s first floor bedroom, and that it would increase the overlooking of his garden.
25. The officer’s report on the proposal shows that the overlooking concern was considered. It acknowledged that the window would allow views into Mr B’s garden but decided that the impact did not merit refusal of the application.
26. The officer’s report does not refer to the potential line of sight into the bedroom window, and so does not demonstrate that this was considered. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports do not need to include every possible planning consideration, just the principal controversial issues. The photographs and images I have seen show that there will be a limited oblique view of the bedroom from this window. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it likely that officers did consider Mr B’s concerns but did not consider the window caused any significant loss of privacy.
27. Mr B also raised concerns that there were direct views from the raised pergola into his rear bay windows and garden. The photographs show that there are existing views from the location of the proposed pergola. The officer’s report shows that the Council decided that due to the distance from Mr B’s property, and the increase in height of the boundary fence, the raised pergola would not cause a detrimental loss of privacy.
28. Mr B also objected to a window and door which will face his property. The officer’s report shows that the Council assessed the impact of this window and door. It stated that the door would have minimal glazing and would serve as an access from a utility room, which is not a principle living space. It also stated that a condition should be added to the planning permission to ensure the window was non-opening and obscure glazed.
29. I have seen nothing to suggest a lack of regard for Mr B’s objections. I am satisfied that the Council properly assessed the impact of the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman