Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed before granting planning permission for the complainant’s neighbour's extension. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council ignored their objections when it approved planning permission for their neighbour’s extension. She says the Planning Officer misled the Planning Committee.
2. Mrs X says her home is now overlooked and this affects her and her family mentally and physically. She wants the Council to review the matter and require her neighbour to take steps to mitigate the loss of privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X including the Council’s responses to her complaint. I have also reviewed the planning application information on the Council’s website and watched a recording of the Council planning committee meeting.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s neighbour demolished their conservatory and built a new extension without planning permission.
7. Mrs X says the Enforcement Officer failed to follow procedures by allowing their neighbour extra time to put in a retrospective planning application.
8. I understand this was frustrating for Mrs X. However any injustice this may have caused was overcome when the Council received a retrospective planning application and she made objections.
9. The planning application details on the Council’s website includes multiple photographs of the site including picture of the former conservatory and the new extension.
10. Mrs X objected and stated the new extension facilitated extreme overlooking of her ground floor living areas.
11. The Planning Officer visited the site and wrote a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of Mrs X’s objections. The Officer stated they considered the new extension did not allow for much greater overlooking than the previous conservatory.
12. Mrs X disagrees with the Planning Officer. She wrote to the Planning Manager asking them to change the Planning Officer’s report. The Manager advised the report would not be changed. However, he confirmed Mrs X’s emails detailing her disagreement with the report would be circulated to Planning Committee Members before the meeting.
13. The Planning Officer presented the application to the Planning Committee. This included photographs and a description of where the photos were taken. The Officer confirmed there is potential for standing on the top of the steps leading up to the extension from the garden. However this is not designed as a viewing or seating platform so overlooking would be temporary when using the stairs.
14. Mrs X spoke to the Committee, outlining her objections. A statement from her Ward Councillor was read out.
15. The Committee Members debated the application. One Member acknowledged there was overlooking if a person is over a certain height and lingered on the steps.
16. Following the debate the Committee voted to approve the application.
17. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Planning Officers’ view on the overlooking. She has provided photographs in which she has inserted a figure to show how a person over a certain height could stand on the top step and look across into her home. However, it is clear from the Councillors’ comments during the meeting that they understood that it is possible to look across to Mrs X’s home from the top step.
18. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
19. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not facilitate significantly worse overlooking than the previous arrangement.
20. I am satisfied the case officer considered the impact of the extension on Ms X’s home explained why the proposal was acceptable.
21. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
22. Also, Mrs X wants the Council to review the matter and require her neighbour to take steps to mitigate the loss of privacy. As planning permission has been granted without evidence of fault in the process, this is not an outcome we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman