Summary: Mr X complained that the Council incorrectly issued a Certificate of Lawfulness for his neighbour’s loft conversion. Mr X said this caused him and his partner significant stress and devalued their property. The Council is at fault for issuing the Certificate of Lawfulness. However, this did not cause any injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council incorrectly issued a Certificate of Lawfulness for his neighbour’s loft conversion. He says the loft conversion is oversized and required a planning application. He says the size of the loft conversion has affected his privacy and amenity, and his property has suffered damage during the works. Mr X is also concerned his property has decreased in value.
2. He says this has caused him and his partner significant stress. He wants the Council to reduce the size of the loft conversion to fit in with the guidelines of the area.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr 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 have not considered

8. Mr X complained about damage to his property during the building of his neighbour’s loft conversion. However, this is a civil matter and is not therefore within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. I have not considered this as part of my investigation.

Back to top

What I found

National Landscapes

9. A National Landscape, formerly and legally known as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), is a legally protected area. Councils must ensure that all decisions on development proposals have regard for the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape, in accordance with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
10. I will use the term ‘National Landscape’ in this decision statement even though Mr X used AONB in his correspondence with the Council and us.

Permitted development

11. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain development to be carried out without making a planning application to the council. In some protected areas permitted development rights can be removed or restricted.

Certificate of Lawfulness

12. It is possible to seek formal confirmation from councils that an existing or proposed development or use of land is lawful and so does not need planning permission. If the council accepts the evidence provided, it can issue a Certificate of Lawfulness (CoL) to the applicant.
13. This may happen where:

• the council has already granted planning permission for the use or development;
• a development is ‘permitted development’ and so deemed acceptable because it complies with limits in regulations;
• the development was unlawful, but the time limit for enforcement actions has now passed.

Planning permission

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

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

What happened

16. This is intended to be an overview of events and is not a detailed chronology.
17. Mr X’s neighbour applied for a CoL in late 2024. The application was for a loft conversion that consisted of a rear dormer with a balcony.
18. A Council officer undertook a site visit in January 2025. The Council issued the CoL in February.
19. Mr X complained to the Council when the loft conversion was completed. He said the dormer was disproportionately large and the balcony affected his privacy. He also said the style of the dormer undermined the character of the National Landscape. He said he had not been consulted during the planning process and had not therefore had an opportunity to comment on the impact before the works were approved. Mr X also questioned the Council’s approval process and said he believed that any works that took place in a National Landscape area required full planning permission. He told the Council he wanted it to remove the dormer.
20. The Council’s complaint response acknowledged that it wrongly approved the CoL for the loft conversion. It explained this was because the property lies within a National Landscape area and is therefore protected Article 2(3) land, where permitted development rights are limited. It said that permitted development rights under class B, which relate to alterations of a roof, do not apply where the property sits on Article 2(3) land. It said therefore, it should have refused the CoL application as the proposed works required full planning permission. It said this did not mean the works would not have been approved had it considered them as a full planning application.
21. The Council disagreed with Mr X that the materials used for the dormer were not in keeping with the area. The Council also said it did not consider the installation of the balcony made any material difference to Mr X’s privacy than a regular window would. The Council also told Mr X it had spoken to the officers who approved the CoL application to ensure the error was not repeated.
22. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response so approached the Ombudsman in June 2025.

Back to top

Analysis

23. The Council’s decision to grant a CoL, and its failure to treat the application as a full planning application, was fault. The Council has acknowledged this.
24. Mr X complained about the size of the dormer and believes it to be disproportionate in size to his neighbour’s property. I have reviewed the relevant national planning policies and the Council’s planning documents, including the officer’s report. I can see that the measurements of the dormer are within permitted development limits. However, as explained above, because the property sits within a National Landscape, permitted development rights for loft extensions are limited. The proposed development did not therefore fall within permitted development, and the application should have been considered as a full planning application.
25. The Council’s planning policy for Mr X’s area does not set any specific size limits for extensions or dormers. Rather, when making their decision, the planning officer must consider materials used, the general appearance of the dormer, and assess whether the dormer would overwhelm the existing property. The officer should also consider the impact of any windows on the privacy of neighbouring properties.
26. The officer’s report shows they did consider the materials used, the proportions of the dormer, and its relationship to the property. It concluded the loft extension satisfied the above criteria. These factors suggest the Council considered the appearance of the dormer.
27. The report did not consider the impact of the addition of a balcony on the amenity of neighbouring properties., which it would have done had it correctly treated the application as a planning application.
28. However, in response to the Ombudsman’s written enquiries, the Council said the balcony offered no additional view of Mr X’s property than a standard window would do. It said it would have approved the balcony had it treated the application as a full planning application, as the view it provides into Mr X’s garden is not significant enough to warrant refusal. The Council has provided documentation to support its position. I am satisfied with the Council’s position that the views from the balcony are also not materially different than those available from the first-floor windows. It therefore follows that the dormer windows would likewise provide no additional view.
29. Given that no size limits apply to planning applications of this type, and the Council considered the factors outlined above when making its decision, on balance, it is more likely than not the Council would have approved the application had it treated it as a full planning application. Therefore, the Council’s fault did not lead to any injustice to Mr X, as it is likely the outcome would have been the same.
30. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view that the materials used are in keeping with the local area, and that the dormer is proportionate to the property. However, the Council reached a different conclusion, and this is a matter of professional judgement. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to challenge such judgement.
31. The Council has said it has spoken to the officers involved to ensure that the error it made is not repeated. I do not therefore find it necessary to recommend further service improvements.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I find fault, but this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. I have concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman