Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with a planning application near his home. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with a planning application near his home because it granted planning permission without properly following planning policies concerning overlooking and loss of light.
2. Mr X says his amenity has been adversely impacted because of loss of light and increased overlooking of his garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Mr X 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

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

9. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

10. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
11. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

12. Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 4 says, “Dormer windows should not adversely overlook neighbouring properties. The relationship between a proposed dormer window and surrounding private garden areas and habitable room windows will be carefully assessed. A separation distance of 13.5m should be retained between any dormer at second floor or above and any boundary adjacent to private garden space.”

What happened?

13. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
14. Mr X made objections to the Council about a planning application near his home.
15. The Council granted planning permission for the development.
16. Mr X complained the Council had not properly applied planning policies. The Council did not uphold his complaint.

Analysis

17. The Ombudsman only looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.

Light

18. In his objection, Mr X referred to Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines relating to assessing impacts on daylight.
19. The Council says, “Whilst BRE guidelines provide a useful tool, they are not referenced and are not required to be considered by Council’s adopted policies or referenced within relevant householder extension guidance (SPD4). Instead the guidance (SPD4) requires officers to consider the context and orientation of the site, scale of development and relationship to neighbouring room windows (along with information gathered on an officer site visit) and make a judgement on the impact of a proposal.”
20. SPD 4 makes no mention of the BRE light guidelines Mr X made reference to in his objection. I agree with the Council. It was under no obligation to use or follow them as part of its assessment of the planning application.
21. It is clear that the Council did consider the details of Mr X’s objection to the development because it is referenced in the officer report.
22. The Council took into account the material considerations it needed to when it made a decision about the application. While I understand Mr X is unhappy with the outcome, this was a decision the Council was entitled to take. This is not fault by the Council.

Overlooking

23. The Council says, “throughout SPD4 harmful overlooking is depicted as direct overlooking, as shown in Fig 10 (spd-4-a-guide-for-designing-housing-extensions.pdf (trafford.gov.uk) page 17). The relationship between the approved rear dormer windows and no. 17 is oblique, and already exists between the properties due to the first floor windows. The Council consistently assesses overlooking as direct, rather than oblique, because this type of overlooking is often already present between neighbouring properties, especially in suburban locations such as Burnside. Therefore the way the Council understand and apply paragraph 3.6.6 consistently in their decision making is in regards of direct overlooking, which in the case of a rear dormer would be the relationship to properties/garden to the rear of the site, not to the side.”
24. Illustrations in SPD4 show overlooking as being direct rather than oblique.
25. There is an apparent contradiction between the literal wording of the Council’s policy as set out in paragraph 12 and the way it says it assesses overlooking in paragraph 23.
26. The Council can deviate from policy where it is able to justify doing so. The officer report shows the Council considered the matter of oblique overlooking and did not consider it to significantly increase levels of overlooking. In this case, even if the policy was interpreted strictly, the Council has justified its decision. While I understand Mr X is unhappy with the outcome, this was a decision the Council was entitled to take. This is not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have not found fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman