Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council considered a planning application for development near his property. We have not found fault with actions of the Council

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that the Council, when considering a planning application for development near Mr B’s property, failed to properly consider the impact on his amenity. In particular it allowed amendments to the first floor layout which make the overlooking into his living room worse, and it failed to consider the cumulative impact of the development round Mr B’s property on his daylight. The situation has caused Mr B distress and frustration due to the detrimental impact on his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning permission

5. Planning permission is required for the development of land and may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land.
6. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
8. General planning policies may pull in different directions (for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

What happened

9. The Council received a planning application for development on land near Mr B’s property. The Council validated the application, put up a site notice and sent out consultation notifications. Mr B objected to the application as he was concerned about potential overlooking of his living room and garden and loss of light due to the cumulative impact of previous development on the other side of his property.
10. The case officer visited the site when they put up the site notice and reviewed the site including its relationship with the properties in Mr B’s road. They visited the site again a month later after receiving comments from neighbouring properties, including Mr B, and took photographs of the boundary hedge to the site and Mr B’s property. They assessed the distances between the first floor windows of the proposed development and Mr B’s property and garden and considered there was a potential for overlooking of Mr B’s garden from one of the first floor bedrooms.
11. They requested the applicant amend the first floor layout to have a bathroom in this position with a condition requiring an obscure-glazed window to mitigate any overlooking. The window of the bedroom would be set further back, facing the gable-end of Mr B’s property which had no windows at first floor level and the large boundary hedge screened the ground-floor secondary window to Mr B’s living room. The applicant sent out amended plans which the Council sent out for re-consultation.
12. Mr B objected again saying the amended plans did not reflect an agreement he believed he had made with the applicant, the changed bedroom window would overlook his lounge and the bathroom although obscure-glazed would still open and potentially overlook his garden. He also requested that the boundary hedge should be protected to ensure it could not be removed.
13. Following consideration of the amended plans and comments, a senior planning officer visited the site including Mr B’s property. They took photographs from inside Mr B’s property and the surrounding area. They considered the development was sited too close to the boundary hedge: it could overshadow and lead to a loss of natural light to the windows facing the hedge and in turn create pressure for possible removal of the hedge.
14. In order to mitigate these negative effects, the Council requested the applicant submit amended plans repositioning the dwelling a metre further away from the boundary hedge and removing two of the ground floor windows. The applicant submitted these.
15. The Council considered the application including the amended plans under its delegated powers. The case officer’s report gave a detailed assessment of the impact of the proposals on Mr B’s property, included the two sets of amendments to reduce the impact on his amenity. It noted he had also constructed a fence to provide screening to his garden. It considered that the fence together with the established boundary hedge provided sufficient distance between the habitable room windows in the proposed dwelling and Mr B’s house and garden to prevent significant overlooking and maintain adequate privacy. It noted the middle window serving the bedroom on the first floor would be at an oblique angle to Mr B’s garden and sufficient distance to prevent unacceptable overlooking. The bathroom window would have a condition requiring it to be obscure-glazed and restricted opening for the lifetime of the dwelling.
16. The report also said it would include conditions removing permitted development rights for extensions and openings to protect the amenity of surrounding residents and requiring the retention and maintenance of the boundary hedge.
17. The report referred to Mr B’s request for all the windows on the elevation facing his property to be obscure-glazed, similar to those of an earlier development on the other side of his property. The Council said the relationship between the properties was different in this case and it was not necessary, as due consideration had been given to the potential overlooking elsewhere in the report.
18. The Council granted planning permission with the conditions described above.
19. Mr B complained to the Council about the way in which the Council had considered the application and his objections. He said the Council had not ensured there was 21 metres between his property and the proposed development, it had incorrectly described his living room window as secondary and high-level, it had not properly considered the impact of the three first-floor windows and the new proposal would exacerbate the loss of light to his property which he already experienced from the earlier development.
20. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It said it did not have a 21 metre minimum separation distance in its planning policy and it considered the distance between the properties was acceptable. It noted it had requested the applicant move the proposed dwelling a metre further away from the hedge and protected the hedge. It noted officers had visited the site including Mr B’s property on three occasions before permission was granted and another one as part of the consideration of his complaint. The Council considered the loss of light would be minimal and offset by the boundary hedge. It maintained its view that the lounge window facing the development was not the primary window to the room as there were two other larger windows and the Council had taken appropriate steps to mitigate any overlooking into that window.
21. Mr B then complained to us.

Analysis

22. I understand Mr B’s concerns about the proposals and the potential impact on his amenity. However, I have not identified any fault in the way the Council considered those concerns. It consulted on the proposals, visited the site on three occasions including inside Mr B’s property and considered Mr B’s objections.
23. It took several steps to address the concerns raised by requesting amended plans on two occasions with changes to reduce the impact of the development on Mr B’s property. It also added several conditions to the planning permission to protect Mr B’s amenity including retention and maintenance of the boundary hedge, ensuring the bathroom window was obscure-glazed with restricted opening and removal of permitted development rights to prevent any changes to the property in the future which may adversely affect Mr B. It also considered the impact of the development on natural light into the property taking into account the existing development on the other side of the property.
24. I realise Mr B is disappointed at the outcome, but I have not found fault in the way the decision was made. The Council balanced the proposals against the impact on nearby residents, recommended changes to address concerns and granted permission.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman