Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s rear extension and dormer. The injustice caused to Miss X by the planning decision and the neighbouring development is not sufficient to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives next door to a property to whose owner the Council granted planning permission for an extension and roof dormer. She complains the Council:
1. made an error by granting the planning permission;
2. is incorrectly saying the extension does not have any impact on her property.
2. Miss X says the development affects her garden. She says it blocks light, is imposing and causes overlooking. She considers the development is an eyesore and not in keeping with the area. She wants the Council to apologise and give her financial compensation.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Miss X, online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council accepts the neighbouring development does not comply with its Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for house extensions. But officers considered their breach of that guidance had not resulted in a development which affects Miss X’s property.
6. It is likely to be fault that the Council has granted permission for a development which does not comply with its own SPG. But we will only investigate a fault further if there is evidence of it directly causing a significant personal injustice to the person complaining.
7. Miss X says the development affects her garden, blocking light, feeling imposing and causing overlooking. The impacts of new development on gardens and outside spaces is considered by the planning system to cause much less planning harm than impacts to rooms within houses.
8. The neighbour’s first-floor extension runs along the boundary furthest from Miss X’s property, not the shared boundary next to her garden. Any blocking of daylight or sense of being imposing or massing caused by the first-floor extension would be minimal, given the separation distance between it and Miss X’s garden.
9. The houses’ rear gardens face north, so the new extension or dormer could not block significant amounts of direct sunlight from Miss X’s garden. The dormer adds height to the side wall next to the part of Miss X’s garden nearest her house by ‘squaring off’ the pitched roof. But the additional massing impact on her garden space caused by the side of the dormer is not a sufficient injustice to justify an investigation.
10. In respect of overlooking, there are no first-floor windows in the extension facing Miss X’s property. There are new windows in the second-floor dormer which give views over the end of Miss X’s garden. However, existing first-floor rear windows in the neighbouring host property already gave such views of her garden. The new dormer windows would not cause such additional overlooking of the garden to be a significant injustice to Miss X.
11. There is insufficient injustice to Miss X caused by the impact on her property of the development as permitted and built to warrant us investigating.
12. Miss X says the extension is an eyesore. But there is no right within planning for residents only to be able to see new developments from their house or garden that they personally like. This do not cause sufficient injustice to Miss X to justify investigation.
13. Miss X also says the development is not in keeping with the area. The dormer is to the rear of the property and most of the development is not visible from the street scene. Miss X and other neighbours would have views of the extension and dormer from different parts of their property or rear gardens. But their presence and any impact caused by the new development on the wider area is not a significant injustice to Miss X warranting investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not sufficient personal injustice caused to her by the matters to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman