Summary: There was no fault when the Council granted planning permission to build an extension next to Mr X’s home. It visited the site and took all the relevant factors into account. There was also no fault when the Council decided that there had been no breach of planning control when the applicant removed a hedge.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his property of his neighbours extension when it approved planning permission. In particular it did not consider:
• The impact on light to his home and garden.
• The changes to the design of the front of the house and the impact on his dormer window.
• That the extension crosses the front building line.
2. Mr X also complains that the Council did not take any action when he reported that his neighbour had made changes to the boundary treatment that were not authorised or agreed.
3. Mr X says this has impacted on his enjoyment of his home and on the health of him and his wife. He says that he has lost light to his house and garden, lost privacy and the extension is overbearing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed the issues with him. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered any comments received before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations. General planning policies may pull in different directions (eg in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
9. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
10. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

What happened

11. Mr X lives in a semi-detached house with a large front garden. His adjoining neighbour applied for planning permission to a single-storey extension to the front of the house. The planning application included remodelling of the front of the house so that the neighbour would remove the bay window and balcony on the first floor, and the dormer window on the second floor.
12. Mr X objected to the application. He asked the Council to visit his home so that he could explain his concerns. He also said the submitted plans were not accurate because they did not show his bedroom window which would lose light. Mr X said the extension would be overbearing, with a wall on the boundary of his garden ten feet high, and allow overlooking into his home and garden (his only garden is at the front of the house), and it would change the frontage so would alter the street scene.
13. In a further objection, Mr X said that he had not heard back from the Council. He again raised an objection to the planning application.
14. The Council visited the site twice and viewed the neighbour’s house as well as Mr X’s property from his front garden. The Council liaised with the applicant to reduce the size of the extension and step it back from the boundary with Mr X. This was to reduce the impact on Mr X’s home.
15. The Council granted planning permission. The planning report says:
• The Council had negotiated with the applicant to reduce the size of the extension, step it away from the neighbouring boundary, and remove a balcony so as to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
• The Council had considered the impact on the amenity of the neighbours. It described the dimensions of the extension. The Council considered the impact on Mr X’s use of his home. It said that the mature hedge along the boundary, meant the extension would not have a detrimental effect on this. The hedge was already blocking some light to Mr X’s front garden, and any additional light blocked by the extension would be negligible.
• It had also assessed that the extension would not be unduly overbearing as both the site and Mr X’s home had large front gardens.
• The applicant had submitted details of how the existing building would be made good following removal of the first-floor balcony and second-floor dormer window.
• The Council had considered the impact on the street scene and the wider area. It had decided the building was acceptable because the site is set back from the main road, and the other houses in that row are of varying designs with large front gardens.
16. Mr X complained to the Council. He raised not only that the Council had not properly considered the impact on him, but also that the neighbour intended to turn the property into flats, and that the large extension was not necessary for a normal home. Mr X also complained that it had been hard to communicate with the Council.
17. The Council explained that its planning officer had visited the site twice and properly considered the impact on his home. The Council referred Mr X to the planning report which set out how the Council had considered the proposal. It also said that his neighbour would need planning permission to turn the property into flats and it could not refuse the current application on the basis of this possibility. The Council said it had responded to Mr X’s contact and had visited him to discuss the extension.
18. In response to my investigation the Council has further explained that although Mr X complained that the extension breached the front building line, there is no line over which an extension cannot cross. Instead a planning officer will consider the impact on the neighbours and the wider character of the area. The Council had taken into account the impact of the extension on Mr X. The Council had also considered the impact on the street scene.
19. The neighbour started to build the extension. In doing so they removed a mature hedge along the boundary and erected a two-metre-high fence in its place. This is the hedge that the Council had referred to in its planning report as already impacting on the light to Mr X’s garden.
20. Mr X complained to the Council that this meant the neighbour was not building in accordance with the planning permission, and the Council visited the site. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, in this case, the Council concluded that there was no breach of planning control because the planning permission for the extension did not require the neighbour to keep the hedge. Further, the neighbour would not need planning permission to erect the fence. There was no basis for the Council to take enforcement action.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr X?

21. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
22. There was no fault in how the Council decided the planning application. It considered Mr X’s objection and assessed the impact on his home as well as on the character of the area by visiting the site more than once and negotiating a more acceptable design with the neighbour. The Council set out its conclusions in its planning report. It is clear that the Council considered the size and impact of the extension, including how far forward it would come. As there is no fault in how the Council took the decision I cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
23. Mr X complains that as the neighbour’s existing dormer window was effectively attached to his own, its removal will damage his home. However, this is not a planning consideration and any damage to property is a private matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
24. There was also no fault when the Council decided it could not take enforcement action. The neighbour was not required to keep the hedge along the boundary with Mr X. This means the Council could not take any action when they removed it.
25. I have looked at whether the Council should have considered making this a condition of the planning permission. However, the planning report refers to the hedge because it already impacts on the light to Mr X’s front garden and the Council considered the extension would not make any significant additional impact in that aspect. This is not a reason for the Council to require Mr X’s neighbour keep the hedge.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman