Summary: Mr C complained the Council wrongly granted his neighbour planning permission for extensions which overlooks his property and impacts his privacy. The Council agreed it had applied the law and its policy incorrectly, and the development may not have been approved. It sought to mitigate the impact and offered Mr C a remedy in line with the District Valuer’s assessment. We found the Council’s apology and proposed remedy was appropriate to acknowledge the impact its fault caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complained the Council wrongly granted his neighbour planning permission for a development without properly considering the impact on neighbouring amenity. He said the Council accepted it had caused errors, but its remedy was inappropriate to the harm caused.
2. Mr C also said the neighbour’s development has resulted in flooding issues to his property.
3. Mr C said, as a result, he had a significant loss of privacy and had damage to his property and contents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr C’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr C and considered the information he provided;
• considered the planning documents, law, guidance and Council Policy relevant to the complaint.
7. Mr C 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

Relevant law, guidance and policy

Planning permissions

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:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
11. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Land drainage

12. The impact development might have on land drainage can be a material planning consideration. If land drainage is raised in an objection letter to a planning application, and they are an important planning consideration, we would expect to see evidence to show the Council had taken the issue into account before it made its decision. Without some evidence to show the Council considered the issue, we cannot know whether it has exercised its discretion properly.
13. However, even if we find fault in a failure to consider drainage issues during the planning process, it does not mean we will expect the Council to provide a significant remedy for the consequences. A grant of planning permission does not allow developers to cause damage to their neighbour’s land. Because of this, we would not expect councils to pay compensation caused by the acts or omissions of private individuals. Remedies for these matters are available in the civil courts and tribunals.

Council Policy

14. The ‘Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document 2020’ (SDP) sets out the Council’s expectations of developers and developments, including what it expects to protect residential amenity for light and privacy. This includes:
• it should be considered how buildings relate to each other, which includes their orientation, ground levels and separation distances.
• in the interest of protecting privacy, a 20 metres separation is required between existing ground and first floor habitable room windows and proposed ground and first floor habitable room windows.
• it is acceptable for non-habitable rooms to be closer than this distance to be obscure glazing and non-opening or high-level opening. The use of obscure glazing in habitable rooms to achieve lower distances is not acceptable unless they are secondary windows.
• In the interests of protecting aspect and light, the blank wall of an extension directly facing the window of a habitable room of the same height shall be a minimum 12 metres apart.
• The minimum distance increases to 14 metres where the extension is a storey higher and 16 metres where the difference is two storeys. These distances may be relaxed if the window is not significantly enclosed by the extension.

What happened

15. Mr C bought his property in Summer 2023, which he has lived in since with his family.
16. Two months before Mr C bought his property, his neighbour applied for planning permission to the Council. The application was for extensions to the existing property, which included a side and rear extension with windows on the ground level and an additional first floor window. The Council sent notification letters to nearby neighbours, including the previous owners of Mr C’s property.
17. The Council considered Mr C’s neighbour’s planning application shortly after he had bought his property. It approved the proposal with a condition for the side extension’s first floor window to be obscured glazing to protect neighbouring amenity.
18. Mr C’s neighbour began construction of the development shortly after.
19. In Autumn 2023 Mr C complained to the Council. He said he had not been aware of the planning application as the previous owners of his property had not informed him. He said:
• his neighbour had installed big ground floor windows, which could overlook directly into his garden and habitable rooms of his property. He therefore had a loss of privacy;
• light was limited due to the extension;
• he would now be unable to extend his property due to the reduced distance to his neighbours property;
• his neighbour had removed an existing short fence on their boundary and replaced it with a 1.8m fence, but had left the materials and waste in Mr C’s garden; and
• he wanted to trim trees and vegetation on the boundary but was concerned this would result is a further reduction of privacy.
20. The Council acknowledged the development had an overlooking impact on Mr C’s rear facing windows and garden. This was due to a difference in ground levels between the properties. However, as planning permission had been granted it could only seek to work with his neighbour to mitigate this. It explained, if this was not successful, it would ask the District Valuer to assess the impact on Mr C’s property.
21. The Council also explained any application Mr C makes for works on his property would be considered on its own merits, and he did not need permission from the Council to trim his trees. It said his neighbour’s removal and replacement of the fence was a private matter between them, which it would not get involved in.
22. The Council sought to work with Mr C’s neighbour to mitigate the impact the development had on Mr C and other neighbours. However, this was unsuccessful. It subsequently asked the District Valuer to assess the impact the development had on Mr C’s property.
23. Mr C escalated his complaint with the Council. He said he was not satisfied with its response as his neighbour’s extensions significantly impacted his privacy and would reduce the value of his property.
24. The District Valuer inspected Mr C’s and his neighbours’ properties to assess whether the development had an impact on his amenity and loss of value to his property. It found there was some existing overlooking, but this increased following the development. This had been mitigated to some extent through the installation of the 1.8m fence, and existing vegetation and outbuildings. It found Mr C’s property was likely to have a reduced value of £2,000 because of his neighbours’ development.
25. Shortly after, the Council provided its final complaint response to Mr C. It accepted it had failed to apply both the law and its SDP policy correctly when it approved his neighbour’s planning application. This led to a decision which may otherwise not have been made. It had therefore asked the District Valuer to assess the development’s impact on Mr C’s property, which was found to be £2,000 less in value. It explained its other attempts to reduce the impact through negotiation with his neighbour had been unsuccess and it could not control this.
26. Mr C is not satisfied with the Council’s response and the remedy it offered. He asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.

Analysis and findings

The planning approval

27. The Council has agreed it failed to follow the law and its policy when it considered Mr C’s neighbours planning application, and as a result there has been an impact on his amenity. This was primarily as it had failed to fully understand the relationship between the two existing buildings and ground levels. This was fault.
28. I have considered whether the Council’s apology and remedy offer was appropriate to the injustice this caused Mr C. I found the Council’s decision to attempt to work with his neighbour to reduce the impact and involve the District Valuer was appropriate. It based its proposed remedy of the view it received.
29. The District Valuer is best placed to reach a view on the financial impact such developments may have, it is therefore not for the Ombudsman to reach a different view.
30. In this case, the District Valuer’s view considered the development had an impact on Mr C’s amenity which amounted to a £2,000 loss of value to the property. I found the remedy offered by the Council is appropriate for Mr C to use to screen and mitigate the overlooking impact the development has on his amenity.

Mr C’s other concerns

31. I understand Mr C was also unhappy about his neighbour’s installation of a taller fence and leaving the old fence in his garden. However, I agreed with the Council’s view this was a private matter to be resolved between Mr C and his neighbour at the time. There is no evidence to suggest the taller fence should not have been permitted as this helps reduce the overlooking impact of the development.
32. Mr C raised concerns about his neighbour’s development may reduce his own rights to gain planning approval for works to his property in the future. The Council correctly informed Mr C it could not consider this, as any applications he may submit would be considered on their own merits. The Council was therefore not at fault on this matter.
33. I have not seen evidence Mr C or other neighbours raised concerns about the development regarding land drainage concerns. This matter was therefore unlikely to be a material consideration for the Council. Also, even if the Council failed to consider this, any impact of damage to Mr C’s property or belongings would be a private matter between him and his neighbour. Mr C can bring a claim for damage to his property to the attention of a court.

Complaints handling

34. I have found no fault in how the Council handled Mr C’s complaint. This is because it responded to his complaint as set out in its complaints policy, and it informed him it would seek the District Valuer’s view which meant it could not issue its final response until it had received this.
35. I have not made any service improvement recommendations for the Council as it has already taken the steps I would have recommended. This was to remind its staff of the importance of having a clear understanding of the relationship between neighbouring buildings and ground levels before reaching a view on planning applications.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault. However, the Council’s apology and proposed remedy was appropriate to acknowledge the impact its fault caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman