Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s property. Mr B says the Council did not give proper consideration to his loss of privacy which will result from a window on the side of the new extension. Mr B would like the Council to withdraw the grant of planning permission and remove the proposed window from the plans.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr B’s letter of complaint and the supporting information he sent. I have considered the complaint correspondence between Mr B and the Council. I have considered the planning records, which are available on the Council website, for the planning application Mr B complains about. I have also shared a draft version of this statement with Mr B, and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. A planning application was put in to the Council for an extension to the property next to Mr B’s home.
6. The plans did not show any windows on the proposed side elevation facing the front of Mr B’s home. But, during the application process the plans were changed to include a bedroom window at first floor level.
7. Mr B objected to the application for several reasons, including that the proposed window on the side elevation would result in a loss of privacy for his property. Mr B was concerned that his bathroom window would be overlooked. Mr B said his bathroom window, although obscure glazed, has a top hinge and is normally open when the bathroom is in use. Mr B said the proposal would result in a direct view from the new bedroom window into his bathroom.
8. The Council granted the application planning permission. The Council wrote a case report which set out the Council’s consideration of the application. The Council decided the impact on neighbouring properties was acceptable.
9. Mr B complained to the Council about its decision to grant planning permission. Mr B said the Council did not give proper consideration to his loss of privacy from the proposed window in the side elevation.
10. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint. The Council did not accept it was at fault. The Council said Mr B’s bathroom window is an obscure glazed non-habitable room window and the potential impact was considered to be acceptable when assessed against planning policies as this prevents loss of privacy. Mr B then complained to us.

Assessment

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find the Council’s decision – to grant planning permission – was affected by fault.
12. The Council was aware of Mr B’s objections to the proposal because it referred to them in the case report. The Council noted that Mr B’s bathroom window is obscure glazed and that it serves a non-habitable room. This comment was made with regard to the Council’s consideration of whether the extension would impact on sunlight or daylight, or appear dominating and overbearing to an unacceptable degree.
13. The Council did not specifically comment on the impact on Mr B’s bathroom window when it addressed potential overlooking from the extension. Rather, the Council said the window would face out over the single storey garage of Mr B’s property, so there would be no direct interfacing with Mr B’s property.
14. But, it is clear from the previous section of the case report that the Council was aware Mr B’s bathroom window is obscure glazed. Also, in response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council explained its assessment of overlooking with reference to Mr B’s bathroom window being obscure glazed and serving a non-habitable room. The Council said it decided that obscure glazing was not required for the window in the side elevation. I recognise Mr B says the window has a top hinge and is normally open when the bathroom is in use. But, the Council was entitled to take into account the fact the window is obscure glazed when making its assessment.
15. The Council could have done more to explain this assessment in the case report, but an investigation is unlikely to find this affected the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.
16. I will now address Mr B’s further complaints about the Council’s handling of the application.
17. Mr B complains that the initial application did not include a window in the side elevation. But, a planning applicant can make changes to the plans during the application process. Mr B was aware of the changes and put in objections.
18. Mr B complains that the Council’s decision is not in line with information on the planning portal which says any upper floor window located in a side elevation must be obscure glazed. But, these rules are for extensions which are permitted development, which means a grant of planning permission from the local planning authority is not needed.
19. The extension Mr B complains about needed a full planning application to the Council. It was for the Council to assess whether the window on the side elevation needed to be obscure glazed. Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision that the proposed first floor window is acceptable. But, unless there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision, we cannot say the Council’s decision was right or wrong.
20. Mr B also complains that the first floor window would prevent him building a similar extension to his property. But, the Council must assess a planning application based on the impact of the proposed development at the time of the application. Mr B’s intention to extend his property was not a material consideration the Council could consider when deciding the application.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman