Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s retrospective planning application for a roof extension with dormer windows. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council granted planning permission for a neighbour’s roof extension which she says invades her privacy. She also complains the Council refused to visit her property to view the extension from her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 or continue 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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a report of a breach of planning control by Ms X’s neighbours who had built a roof extension with dormer windows. It publicised the application. Ms X objected saying the dormer overlooks her home and garden. She also said the obscure glazing to the dormer windows is irrelevant as the windows are not fixed shut.
6. The Council noted the applicant could build a roof extension with dormer windows under permitted development. The only reason a planning application is needed is because what is built is 10 centimetres higher than that permitted.
7. The Planning Officer’s report also notes Ms X’s concerns that the windows are opening. However, it also notes one window serves a bathroom. The Officer states that while the number of windows overlooking Ms X’s property have increased, the additional overlooking in comparison to that which existed before the installation of the dormer is minimal.
8. Having considered the impact from the new windows and the fact that the extension can be built without any planning permission if it were 10 centimetres lower, the Council decided the increase over what it permitted is minimal and granted planning permission.
9. Ms X complains the Council refused to visit her home to see the impact of the extension. However, the Council has no duty to visit her. The planning officer visited the site, took measurements and is clear on what is being applied for.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the application. However, the Council:
• Publicised the application.
• Visited the application site.
• Considered Ms X’s objections.
• Outlined relevant national and local planning policy; and
• Explained why it considered the application acceptable.
11. From the evidence we have see it appears the Council followed the correct process before deciding to approve the retrospective planning application. Therefore we cannot criticise the decision to approve the scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman