Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr Y’s complaint of the Council failing to notify him of a neighbour’s planning application. The Council did not send him, and 20 other residents, notification letters. This caused no significant injustice. While the Council failed to show it properly considered the proposal’s impact on Mr Y’s amenities, this caused no significant injustice either.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council failed to:
1. Notify him of a neighbour’s planning application for consent of works to a building to the rear of his garden; and
2. Properly consider the impact it will have on his amenities, particularly privacy and light.
2. As a result, he lost the opportunity to make representations, and his amenities will be adversely affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
4. 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’. We provide a free service but, must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information Mr Y sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Y and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

6. To the rear of Mr Y’s property and garden is a new residential building containing several flats. The Council notified him of the previous planning application for the site which saw the demolition of the existing building and construction of a 3-storey block of flats. Mr Y only became aware of further planning consent when scaffolding went up in February 2019.
7. The new application made amendments to the approved scheme. The amendments raised the ridge height of the roof 800mm and installed 4 new rooflight windows. He is unhappy he lost the chance to make representations on the application and now has a greater degree of overlooking of his house and garden than before. The higher roof gives a more overbearing, darker, enclosed feel.

Notification

8. The Council accepted it only notified flats within the building, not surrounding properties. This was an error as its policy is to notify all adjoining neighbours. It failed to notify 21 surrounding properties which were entitled to received notification.

Analysis

9. I found fault on this complaint. In reaching this conclusion, I took account of the following:
1. The statutory guidance sets out the minimum notification requirements for this type of application (minor). This states the notification requirement is:

• Displaying a site notice in at least one place on, or near, the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days; or
• By serving the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier. (Article 15(5)(a) and (b) The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 as amended)
2. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (May 2006) explains what it will do when it receives a planning application. This includes notification and consultation. What it does depends on the type of planning application. This application was a minor one as it contained minor proposals likely only to be of interest to those immediately near to it. For minor applications, the procedure is to write notification letters to occupiers and landowners of properties adjoining the site. (paragraphs 3.2.4-3.2.7)
3. The Council accepted it failed to comply either with the statutory requirement or its own requirement about notification. This is fault.
4. While he lost the opportunity to comment on the application, I am not satisfied it caused him a significant injustice. This is because I am not satisfied the outcome of the application would have changed even if he had sent representations. In reaching this conclusion, I took the following into account:
• Two of the rooflights are to non-habitable rooms;
• The remaining 2 are to bedrooms and are quite high up from the eaves. The angle of the rooflights means their outlook is up rather than down towards Mr Y’s garden and property;
• The existing plans sent with the application show 2 rooflights already in place although in slightly different positions;
• The plans and satellite images of the area on the internet show the building is at an oblique angle to Mr Y’s property. It does not directly face his property. This means none of the rooflights directly face his windows either; and
• Anyone standing in the rooms will not have a view out of the window down towards Mr Y’s property unless they open it and peer down.

Amenities

10. Mr Y argued the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the proposal on his amenities. He is concerned about the loss of privacy from the rooflights to his house and garden as well as the impact raising the ridge would have.
11. The planning officer’s report noted the applicant wished to raise the overall height of the roof over part of the building to allow the flat beneath it access to a larger loft area. It involved raising it by 800mm and inserting 6 rooflights, 4 of which are to the rear.
12. The report contained a section titled ‘Impact on Neighbouring Amenity’. In it, the officer considered the 4 rooflights facing the rear and its impact on a neighbouring property. This was not Mr Y’s house which is directly behind it.
13. The officer also considered the raised ridge height and concluded it would have no, ‘discernible impact on neighbouring amenity’. The report contained 3 photographs of the building, but none were of the rear facing Mr Y’s property.
14. When Mr Y complained, the Council considered his concerns about privacy and the ridge height noting:

• Two of the rooflights are not to habitable rooms. One is over stairs and another a bathroom. The use of the bathroom would be less than a bedroom. The remaining 2 are in bedrooms which are about 20 metres from his property. It explained their position, and being located higher up from the eaves, does not allow occupants to look down at the end of Mr Y’s garden. It considered their angle directs outlook up, not down. It concluded there was no unacceptable level of overlooking; and
• It was unlikely the proposed ridge height increase would have a discernible impact on sunlight/daylight to Mr Y’s property. What impact it might have would be acceptable.

Analysis

15. I found fault on this complaint. The report considered the proposal’s potential impact on one neighbouring property. The report concluded it would have no significant impact on this property which has some existing overlooking.
16. The report failed to refer to Mr Y’s property, which is to the rear of the site. I consider this failure is fault. There is no evidence the officer considered the potential impact on Mr Y’s property. As the officer discounted the impact on the other building referred to in the report, this understandably left Mr Y with the impression, rightly or wrongly, that its impact on his property was not considered at all.
17. I am not satisfied this failure caused him a significant injustice. This is because I consider the outcome of the application would have remained the same even if the report had set out how the officer took account of the impact on Mr Y’s property. I say this because:

• As noted, the impact on his privacy would be minimal; and
• The loss of sunlight/daylight would not be significant at 20 metres and with the overall height increase of 800mm.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman found fault causing no injustice on Mr Y’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman