Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his neighbour’s planning application. We found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his neighbour’s planning application. He stated the Council failed to consider his objections or the impact that the development would have on his amenity. He considers the development will detrimentally affect his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I asked Mr X and the Council for more information about the complaint and considered the comments received. I reviewed the planning documents available online and considered planning policy and legislation.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Bromley Local Plan Policies

Policy 37 - General Design of Development

This policy states development is expected to meet a high standard of design and it lists criteria that developments will be expected to meet. The most relevant are:

d -The relationship with existing buildings should allow for adequate daylight and sunlight to penetrate in and between buildings;

e - Respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants, providing healthy environments and ensuring they are not harmed by noise and disturbance, inadequate daylight, sunlight, privacy or by overshadowing.

What happened

6. Mr X’s complaint concerns the way the Council decided a planning application for an extension by his next-door-neighbour.
7. The application was submitted in summer 2020. It was for a part one-storey, part two-storey side and rear extension. It included raising the ridge height to accommodate a loft extension with dormer windows and roof lights.
8. The Council consulted neighbours and Mr X objected. He expressed concerns about the impact on his privacy from new roof lights in the elevation of the property that faced him. He stated he believed the plans showed his property incorrectly. As a result, he believed the new single-storey extension would breach the 45-degree rule, affecting his light. He also considered that increasing the roof height of his neighbour’s property would impact his light.
9. Mr X also noted that his property and his neighbour’s property were shown as being in parallel. However, their plots were not exactly parallel. So, as the plans stood, he doubted that a one metre separation distance would be maintained between the next extension and their shared boundary.
10. Mr X stated he already had plans approved to extend his property to the rear. He stated that his neighbour’s application did not take account of his plans. He felt the plans by his neighbour represented overdevelopment.
11. The application was considered during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council stated, as a result, no site visit took place. However, the applicant’s agent provided photographs of the site which enabled the application to be assessed.
12. The case officer’s report for the application noted the objections made by Mr X and other neighbours. They accepted the extensions were large, but considered they had been well designed, respecting the character of the existing property. They did not consider, as a result, the proposed development was overly bulky or dominant. They considered the design, as a whole, was acceptable.
13. The case officer took account of council policy which protected neighbour amenity. They considered while the bulk and scale of the extensions would be visible to Mr X, there was sufficient separation between the new extensions and Mr X’s property so as not to warrant the refusal of the application.
14. The case officer also noted Mr X’s approved plans for development. They set out their view that the proposed works would not have a significant impact on Mr X’s scheme, should he implement it.
15. The officer noted windows were proposed in the elevation facing the neighbour on the other side of the proposed development. These would be conditioned to require obscure glazing.
16. The Council approved the application.

Mr X’s complaint

17. Mr X complained to the Council on 4 January 2021. He considered his objections had been ignored. He sent the complaint letter via recorded delivery. On 25 January 2021 Mr X wrote to the Council again to chase its response. Again, he sent his correspondence as recorded delivery.
18. In February Mr X emailed the Council to chase again.
19. In March 2021 the Council responded after email correspondence from Mr X. It stated neither of the paper copies of Mr X’s complaint appeared to have been received. It apologised that this caused a delay in responding.
20. The Council explained its view on Mr X’s complaint. It stated the plans showed no windows in the wall facing Mr X’s property, only two roof windows. Given their position in the roof the Council stated these would not be considered harmful to privacy. The Council stated the 45-degree rule was not a specific test in planning policy. It stated its officers make an assessment of the impact based on the circumstances in each planning application. It referred Mr X to the case officer’s report setting out their consideration of the application. It stated loss of light was noted as a relevant consideration. It noted the case officer had decided any impact from the proposed development wasn’t considered harmful enough to warrant refusal.
21. The Council stated that Mr X’s own approved plans were noted by the case officer as part of the decision. The Council referred Mr X to the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.

Was there fault by the Council

22. When reaching a view on a planning application, councils must balance a number of competing priorities. They must be able to show that they have considered the amenity of local residents and the application’s adherence with local plans and guidelines. However, should they seek to refuse an application, they also need to be satisfied that there are material planning reasons for doing so which would be sustainable at appeal.
23. Our role is not to consider whether a particular planning application should have been approved or not, but rather to consider whether the Council reached its decision on the application properly, having regard for the key factors and the policies which are relevant.
24. There is no requirement, in planning legislation that requires councils to conduct site visits. The application was considered using photographs of the applicant’s property and its relationship with the properties either side. This was not fault.
25. I understand Mr X objected to the roof lights in the elevation facing him. The Council noted there were no new windows in the wall of the elevation facing Mr X. It made no specific reference to the rooflights on this side of the building. However, it did add a condition which required obscure glazing of windows being added to the opposite elevation. In this condition it noted that any windows in the ‘flank elevation’ must be obscure glazed and fixed shut, unless the parts of the window that can be opened are more than 1.7m above the floor level. While the focus of the condition was the flank wall on the other side of the development, in the majority of cases, because of their height well above floor level, rooflights will not afford direct overlooking, so they are unlikely to have a harmful affect on privacy. I found there was no fault in the way privacy was considered.
26. The case officer decided that due to the separation distance between Mr X’s property and his neighbour’s, the impact of the new extensions would not be such that warranted refusal. The case officer did not specifically refer to how they had assessed the impact on light, and they could have provided a more detailed explanation of their view. However, I do not consider this represents fault by the Council. It is clear the case officer considered Mr X’s amenity. They also took account of Mr X’s own approved plans. I understand Mr X is dissatisfied that the council did not explain its view on the 45-degree rule. However, this is not a requirement of planning legislation or the Council’s own planning policy. As I say above I am satisfied that amenity was properly considered as a whole. The Council also provided some further explanation of the way the extensions would affect Mr X’s light in its response to our enquiries.
27. Mr X told us he doubted that, when built, his neighbour’s extension would consistently be 1m from his boundary. However, the approved the plans show a 1m separation distance from the boundary will be provided. It is not clear that this will not be met. I also note that Mr X considered the inaccuracy may be around 3 inches, which would be unlikely to cause a significant impact.
28. While I understand Mr X was dissatisfied with how the Council considered the application, I found no fault.

Complaint correspondence

29. Based on evidence of delivery from the Post Office website, it seems more likely than not that Mr X’s complaint correspondence was delivered to the Council. It was not initially responded to by the Council. The Council explained only one member of staff within the planning department was undertaking ‘in office’ duties such as processing mail. So, it told us Mr X’s complaints were either not received in the planning department or were not passed on. The failure to respond to Mr X’s initial complaint could have been avoided. However, the Council apologised for this which is a reasonable remedy to this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I found no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions on Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman