Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s works would lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy to her back garden. We have not found fault in how the Council considered the planning application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council incorrectly granted planning permission for works to her neighbour’s property which included a loft conversion. She also says the Council took too long to respond to her complaint about the matter.
2. Mrs X says the changes will lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy to her back garden and cause her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have viewed the documents for the planning application concerned and the Council’s final complaint response to Mrs X.
6. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Planning permission is usually required for the development of land (including its material change of use).
8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
10. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• the applicant’s personal circumstances;
• views from a property; and
• the impact of a development on property value.
11. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid material planning reasons.
12. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Decision making process and delegation

13. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.
14. Most planning applications should be determined within eight weeks, although the time limit is 13 weeks for major applications.

What happened

15. Mrs X’s neighbours submitted a planning application to the Council late in 2021. Part of the proposed changes included a loft conversion with windows which would give views to the rear garden of the house.
16. As part of the process, the Council sent out consultation letters to adjacent neighbouring properties to share details of the submitted plans. This gave neighbours the chance to raise concerns or objections about the proposed changes.
17. Mrs X was unhappy with the location and style of a particular window in the proposed plans. She was concerned the design of the window would mean her garden was overlooked. Mrs X objected to the plans within the timeframe allowed, saying it would affect her privacy and amenity.
18. The Council considered the application and granted full planning permission under a delegated report early in 2022.
19. During March 2022, Mrs X complained to the Council that it had not responded to a previous email she had sent about the application having been granted. Mrs X listed various reasons she believed meant the application had been incorrectly considered by the Council. The main focus of this was the style of window being used in the loft conversion and the separation distance from the window in question to Mrs X’s garden.
20. Mrs X received a stage one complaint response from the Council and then escalated the complaint to stage two of the Council’s process.
21. The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two escalation request at the end of November 2022. In its letter, it said:
• the style of window being used could have been installed using permitted development rights (meaning no permission would be required);
• the case officer would have focussed the decision on the privacy aspect of the window;
• the separation distances related to overbearing impact from extensions rather than privacy distances;
• that each application was decided on its own merits and therefore it was not appropriate to compare the application to another nearby from some time ago; and
• the window in question could not be removed as planning permission had been granted.
22. The Council then signposted Mrs X to us.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means our role is not to consider whether a planning application should have been approved or not. Rather, we consider whether the Council decided on the application properly, having regard for the key factors and policies which are relevant.
24. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.

The application

25. After Mrs X’s neighbours submitted the application, the Council sent out consultation letters to relevant neighbours in less than a week.
26. The officer’s delegated report on the application shows that neighbour responses were received and considered.
27. Mrs X’s specific concerns (as raised in her objection letter to the Council) were referenced and considered as part of the decision-making process.
28. The Council did not consider that significant overlooking or loss of privacy would occur to neighbours. This was due to the orientation of the window being directly into the property’s own garden and the distance of the window away from the property’s nearest side boundary. The Council said it could not refuse permission on this basis.
29. The officer then granted permission under the Council’s delegated scheme to allow the proposals to go ahead, subject to other amendments not related to Mrs X’s concerns.
30. Having viewed the planning application documents readily available online, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct decision-making process in considering relevant matters and applicable policies.
31. I have seen nothing to suggest a lack of regard for Mrs X’s objections. I find no fault in the actions of the Council in how it considered the proposal.

Complaint handling

32. Mrs X complained the Council did not adhere to its complaint handling timescales and that she therefore waited an extended time to receive her eventual stage two response.
33. Whilst there is a period of several months between Mrs X’s initial complaint and her eventual final response from the Council, the Council did complete its complaint process.
34. As there is no fault on the Council’s part in granting planning permission, I am satisfied, on this occasion, it is not proportionate for us to pursue this particular issue further.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have now completed my investigation. I do not uphold this complaint. There is no fault in how the Council determined the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman