Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to notify them of planning applications and amended plans at a neighbouring property and failed to properly consider the impact on their residential amenity. The Council did carry out the correct notifications and considered the impact on Mr and Mrs X’s residential amenity before approving the applications.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to notify them of planning applications and amended plans at a neighbouring property and failed to properly consider the impact on their residential amenity.
2. Mr and Mrs X say the neighbouring development has destroyed their privacy and devalued their property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning permission

7. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
8. Material planning considerations may include:

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

9. Material planning considerations do not include:

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

10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Key facts

11. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
12. Mr and Mrs X’s complaint concerns development at a neighbouring property. According to the Council, the planning history for the site is as follows:
• 2003 – application for a single storey rear conservatory
• 2023 - extension to property including two storey rear extension and balcony
• 2024 – application to vary a condition on the 2023 application
13. Mr X says that he was notified of a planning application in 2022 for a single storey rear extension with no balcony. He says he discussed the plans with his neighbour and had no objections to the proposal as it did not impact on his residential amenity. Mr X has not provided any evidence, such as the notification letter or copies of the plans, regarding this application. The Council says that it did not receive an application in 2022 from Mr X’s neighbour for a one storey rear extension.
14. The Council notified Mr and Mrs X of the application made in 2023. Mr and Mrs X did not make any objections in respect of the 2023 application but did comment on the 2024. They say they did not receive any notification letter. They were concerned the balcony would result in a significant amount of overlooking and affect their privacy
15. In the delegated decision report for the 2023 application, the Council considered the impact on Mr and Mrs X’s residential amenity. In respect of the balcony , it said the dense tree boundary would screen Mr and Mrs X from the proposed development. It felt the separation distance between the two properties would mean the proposal had a low overbearing impact on Mr and Mrs X’s boundary and dwelling.
16. When considering the subsequent application, the Council again considered the impact on Mr and Mrs X’s residential amenity and the representations they made. This resulted in the Council requesting the addition of a 1.7 metre high obscure glazed privacy screen on the balcony on the elevation next to Mr and Mrs X’s property. Changes were also made to obscure glaze the rear facing part of the balcony. The Council says this was seen as a betterment and the applicant agreed to incorporate it.
17. The delegated decision report for this application also noted the existing boundary treatment would be sufficient to ensure reduction of the impact on residential amenity. It also added a planning condition to ensure the development would be completed in accordance with the approved details.
18. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council in September 2024. He complained he was never notified that the plans for an extension at the neighbouring property had changed. The Council says it notified Mr X of the original planning application on 29 June 2023 and that this showed an application for two storey extensions to the front sides and rear and a rear facing balcony. It says that it did not consult neighbours in respect of the amended plans as this proposed a reduced but similar development.
19. In a stage two complaint response, the Council again explained that it had discretion on whether to reconsult on the amended plans and in this instance felt there were not significant additional elements to warrant further consultations. Mr X stated there was no balcony in the earlier plans and the Council disagreed saying the plans always included a rear, first floor balcony. The Council explained how it had considered the impact on his property. It went on to say that it was requesting changes to the balcony in light of his comments which would further protect his privacy.

Analysis

20. Mr and Mrs X complain about the failure to notify them of planning applications and a failure to properly consider the impact on their residential amenity. Mr X’s account of the situation differs from the Council’s. My consideration of this complaint has to be evidence based and while I have spoken to Mr X, he has not provided evidence to support his position that he was notified in 2022 of an application for a single storey extension and no balcony.
21. The Council has evidenced, with information still available on its website, that an application for development was made in 2023 which involved two storey extensions and a rear balcony. The Council notified Mr and Mrs X of this application. It is not clear to me whether they received this notification letter but I am satisfied the Council sent one and so cannot conclude there was fault by the Council if a letter was not received.
22. In respect of the amended application in 2024, the Council did not notify any neighbours. It has explained its reasons for this and I cannot conclude it was at fault for deciding not to consult. In any case, Mr and Mrs X learned of the application and made representations to the Council which it took into consideration. This resulted in changes to the balcony which afforded further privacy.
23. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X consider the development at the neighbouring property to be inappropriate and to have a detrimental impact on their residential amenity. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear and cogent reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it. We do not make decisions on councils’ behalf, or provide a route of appeal against their decisions, and we cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with a council’s decision. The information provided indicates the Council properly considered both applications and gave consideration to the impact on the neighbours. The fact Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s assessment of the merits of the application is not evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Decision

24. There is no evidence of fault causing injustice in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman