Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council has not fully explained why it considers a planning application for the neighbouring property is acceptable. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs B, complains that the Council has not fully explained its decision to grant planning permission for changes to her neighbour’s home. Mrs B says her small back garden is now overlooked by new dormer windows but the Council has not explained why it considers this is acceptable. Mrs B would like the Council to provide a clear and detailed explanation of the Council’s reasons for granting planning permission for this development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs B including the Council’s final response to her complaint and photographs of the development she complains about. I also considered the Council’s stage 1 response to the complaint, which the Council provided.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When the Council granted planning permission for this development, the Council wrote a case report setting out its consideration of the proposal. This case report included consideration of the impact of the development on the amenity of Mrs B’s home. The Council noted that the new windows would be higher than the existing windows, but the Council said their placement at the front and rear of the property would not unreasonably overlook neighbouring properties.
6. Mrs B complained to the Council about the decision to grant planning permission. Mrs B asked the Council to explain its decision that the windows would not result in unreasonable overlooking of her property.
7. In response, the Council said that the new dormer windows will result in more overlooking than previously. But, the Council said, it would not be unreasonable because the dormers do not directly overlook Mrs B’s land. Rather, they face into the rear garden of the neighbouring property. The Council said this is commonplace across the district.
8. Mrs B did not consider the Council had fully explained its decision, so complained to us.
9. I find an investigation of Mrs B’s complaint is not justified. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
10. The Council has explained that any overlooking into Mrs B’s property will not be unreasonable because the dormers are facing into the rear garden of the application property. As the Council has said, this situation is commonplace where some overlooking of neighbouring gardens can occur from the first storey windows of adjoining properties.
11. I can understand Mrs B’s concerns because previously her garden was not overlooked by the neighbouring property at all. But, the Council is entitled to consider the extent of overlooking which can reasonably be expected when living in a built up area.
12. In terms of overlooking, local planning authorities generally give greater protection to windows of habitable rooms than gardens. This is reflected in the Council’s planning policy which says overlooking is most commonly an issue where windows of habitable rooms would directly face those of a neighbouring property, particularly when considering first floor side extensions, and should be avoided. (Rother District Council Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, paragraph 4.86).
13. The Council’s responses to Mrs B’s complaint were relatively brief, and it may have been helpful if the Council had provided some further detail to explain its decision. But, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman