Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not tell her about later planning applications for a neighbouring development, after it refused planning permission for the first application. This meant Mrs X missed the chance to object to the redesigned scheme. Mrs X also said the Council failed to properly consider the impact on her home. We found the Council was at fault for failing to consult Mrs X on two planning applications. However, there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making, so the fault did not affect the result, and there is no significant remaining injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not tell her about later planning applications for a neighbouring development, after the Council refused planning permission following the first application. This meant Mrs X did not have the chance to object to the redesigned scheme.
2. Mrs X said the Council did not properly consider the scale of the new development or how close it is to her home. She also said it did not properly consider the impact of several windows at the new development which will overlook her property. This will negatively impact her privacy and amenity. It will also reduce the value of her home.

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. 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)
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. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mrs 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

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

Publicity for planning applications

9. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.

For minor developments, councils must publicise the application by either:

• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.

10. As well as regulatory minimum requirements, councils must also produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the council’s policy on how it will communicate with the public when it carries out its functions. In their SCI policy councils may commit to do more than the minimum legal requirements, for example, to put up a site notice and to serve notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.

Decision making and material considerations

11. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
12. 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.
13. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
14. General planning policies may pull in different directions (eg in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities).
15. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

The Council’s separation distance guidelines

16. The Council’s Site Allocations and Development Policies document states proposals for housing development should generally meet its ‘standards for space between buildings’. That is unless the design and layout of the scheme, and its relationship to the site and its characteristics, provides an adequate degree of light and privacy between buildings.
17. The Council’s standards for space between buildings guidance states the gap between habitable rooms for one or two storey buildings should be 18 metres from front to front. Or 21 metres from back-to-back. This standard applies where the sole or principal window in a habitable room faces another habitable room.
18. Where a habitable room faces a non-habitable room, the gap should be 14 metres. This standard applies where the sole or principal window in a habitable room faces either a blank wall or obscure glazed windows.
19. A habitable room is defined as any room in a house except the hall, stairs, landing, toilet, bathroom, and kitchen. Unless the kitchen is a kitchen diner.
20. In addition to these standards, each building should normally be set back at least one metre from the side boundary.

What happened

21. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
22. The Council received a planning application to develop land next to Mrs X’s home in August 2022. It involved demolishing part of an existing commercial premises, and extending the building for housing use as well.
23. The Council consulted neighbours, and Mrs X objected. She raised concerns about loss of light to her lounge and bedroom, and loss of privacy due to windows overlooking her home.
24. The Council refused this first application because it considered it was harmful to neighbouring amenity. Of relevance to Mrs X’s home, the planning officer who assessed the application said:
25. “The new single storey extension will be between 3.3m and 4.9m in height and will be between 3.5m and 2.7m from the boundary to the east. As such the proposed extension is considered to result in a loss of light and will shadow habitable windows on the side of the neighbouring dwelling to the east… The proposals are also considered to be overbearing to this property.”
26. The applicant put in a new application in July 2023, which was a revised version of the August 2022 application. This time, the Council did not consult Mrs X. However, the local parish council objected. It said the development would be overbearing to neighbours and it had highway safety concerns.
27. The Council also received objections from other neighbours, including about loss of light and loss of outlook.
28. The Council granted planning permission, subject to some conditions. The planning officer who assessed the application said:
29. “The size and projection of the rear extension and the height of the single storey side extension has been amended since the previous proposal and the internal layout reconfigured all to overcome the previous reasons for refusal.”
30. “Overall, the proposals as submitted would not result in a loss of amenity to the existing properties to the north and east by virtue of being overbearing, shadowing or a loss of light or privacy.”
31. Regarding the impact on Mrs X’s home, the officer said:
32. “The single storey side extension is not considered to harm the amenity of the neighbouring dwelling due to its reduced height and the two storey extension is set into the site so as not be overbearing to this property. A single side facing window will be 14m from the side facing windows of the neighbouring property which serves a non-habitable room. The remaining side facing windows will be obscure glazed to a height of 1.7m from internal floor level. The windows which are to be obscure glazed are all secondary windows.”
33. The applicant later asked the Council to change one of the planning conditions. They asked for permission to reduce the depth of a commercial building at the development and provide new windows for it. They also asked for permission to add two new windows at the rear of the development.
34. The Council did not consult Mrs X on the requested change. However, on finding out, Mrs X sent her objections to the Council’s planning department. She again raised the issues of overshadowing, and loss of light to her lounge and bedroom. She said the Council was wrong to say the affected rooms in her home are not habitable. She also highlighted the Council’s policy on minimum distance between facing windows of habitable rooms. Mrs X said she would suffer loss of privacy from the increased number of windows directly facing her home and habitable rooms. She asked if the Council would ensure permanent obscure glazed windows. And Mrs X raised environmental concerns about bin storage, smell, and noise near her home.
35. The Council granted permission for the change to a planning condition. The planning officer who assessed the proposed changes considered there would be no increased or harmful impacts compared to the approved scheme. They considered the placement and number of windows still met the Council’s relevant orientation and distance guidance. The officer also considered bin storage arrangements would not result in harmful impact in terms of smell.
36. Mrs X complained to the Council in May 2024 about its failure to tell her about neighbouring planning applications. She said the Council consulted her for the first application. She questioned why it omitted her address for later applications when she lives next to the development site, and it impacts her home.
37. The Council responded to the complaint in June 2024. It said:
• It refused the first application due to its impact on neighbours.
• It then granted planning permission after a second application as it met the requirements for neighbouring amenity. It failed to identify all neighbours for this application, and therefore did not tell them all.
• This failure happened again for the change of condition application. However, Mrs X contacted the planning department with her concerns, and the planning officer considered her comments as part of their assessment.
38. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint and offered its sincere apologies for the error which led to it not telling her about the applications, and for the concern this caused.
39. The Council said, although Mrs X could not comment on the second application, the planning officer’s report explains why the application met the required policies and neighbouring amenity standards.

My investigation

40. Mrs X told me the Council refused permission at first, then waved the application through the second time. She said the Council failed to tell her and other neighbours about the second application.
41. Mrs X said the development will cause a loss of light to her home, and will devalue it. The windows from the development will overlook her home and cause loss of privacy.
42. The Council told me it did not consult Mrs X on the second planning application or change of condition application due to human error. It dealt with this as a training issue for the officer.
43. The Council said it approved plans which included four first floor windows, two second floor dormer windows, and two roof lights. It said the parts of the windows less than 1.7 metres above the internal floor level will have obscure glazing.
44. The Council considers the obscure glazing will prevent any significant impact on Mrs X’s living conditions, and the roof lights are at a height that will not result in significant overlooking. Any views from the first-floor window at the northern boundary will be restricted by the new first floor extension and ground floor extension to the east. Where the window does give a view of Mrs X’s home, it will be towards blank walls. The Council considers there will be no significant impact on Mrs X’s privacy and amenity.
45. The Council said the development will sit alongside Mrs X’s home. The new build sections do not extend further to the rear than Mrs X’s home, and extend only slightly past the front. The Council considers the side windows of Mrs X’s serve non-habitable rooms, or are secondary windows with the rooms they serve also benefitting from light and outlook from other larger windows. The Council does not consider the development will be overbearing or result in significant loss of light.
46. The Council told me it considered environmental impacts, including noise, when it granted planning permission. It received objections about disturbance from the comings and goings at the development, but the Council did not consider this raised any significant noise concerns. The Council considers the noise impact on Mrs X will be limited.

Analysis

47. The Council accepts it did not consult Mrs X on the second planning application, or on the change of condition application. That was fault.
48. However, despite the Council’s failure to consult Mrs X for the second planning application, it did consider the impact on her home when it granted planning permission. It considered broadly the same issues on residential amenity as it had for the first application which it refused. It also considered the specific issues Mrs X included in her objections to the first application (on the overbearing nature of the development and loss of privacy).
49. The Council also considered the relevant distances to the boundary, and between windows of the development and windows of Mrs X’s home, when it assessed both planning applications, and the change of condition application. The distance from the development to the boundary with Mrs X exceeds the requirements of the Council’s guidance. And the Council determined the distance between the windows of the development and Mrs X’s home is also in line with its guidance, providing enough light and privacy.
50. The Council’s failure to consult Mrs X on the second application caused her frustration and distress. It led her to believe the Council overlooked the impact on her home. And she lost the opportunity to raise new objections or to influence events.
51. However, I cannot say the result would have been different if the Council had consulted Mrs X. The second application showed a reduced height to the single storey extension affecting Mrs X’s home, and obscure glazed side facing windows. The Council considered this made the application acceptable in terms of the impact on Mrs X’s home. That was a professional judgement made by the planning officer, and I cannot criticise this in circumstances where the officer correctly identified and considered the material planning issues.
52. I found Mrs X still objected to the change of condition application and the Council included her comments in its assessment. She therefore did not suffer significant injustice when the Council did not consult her about this application.
53. I appreciate Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s view about the impact on her home, but I have not found evidence of fault in the Council’s assessments.
54. The Council has already apologised for its failure to consult Mrs X. As I did not find this failure affected the Council’s decision-making, I do not consider there is any significant remaining injustice arising from the fault.
55. The Council provided training over the failure to consult Mrs X. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would recommend. I therefore do not make any further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

56. I found the Council was at fault for failing to consult Mrs X on two planning applications. However, there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making, so the fault did not affect the outcome, and there is no significant remaining injustice arising from the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman