Mid Sussex District Council (18 015 596)

Category : Planning > Other

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 03 Jul 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X says the Council was at fault in how it responded to his concerns about how it determined a planning application for a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault with the Council’s replies to Mr X and so has ended his consideration of this complaint.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, says the Council was at fault in how it handled his concerns about how it determined a planning application for a neighbouring property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. 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

  1. As part of my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mr X via email and I considered his responses and information he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and documents its provided. I set out my initial view in a draft decision statement and considered Mr X’s comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031

  1. The district plan is the main planning document used by the Council when it considers planning applications. The plan contains a number of policies to assist with this process. The policies below are relevant to this complaint.

DP6: Settlement Hierarchy

  1. This policy is concerned with new development opportunities and is applicable to developments of 10 or fewer dwellings.

DP26: Character and Design

  1. This says all development and surrounding spaces, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings and replacement dwellings, will be well designed and reflect the distinctive character of the towns and villages while being sensitive to the countryside. Applicants will be required to demonstrates that development meets a number of requirements including that it creates a sense of place while addressing the character and scale of the surrounding buildings and landscape.
  2. The policy does not state any formulae or rules for determining if a proposal is of a suitable scale.

Neighbourhood plan

  1. The Council also needs to have regard to the neighbourhood plan for relevant area when determining planning applications. This plan also contains policies to assist the Council when deciding planning applications.
  2. Policy CNP 10 of the relevant Neighbourhood Plan sets out the criteria that an extension to an existing building must meet to be permitted. The policy requires extensions to fit unobtrusively with the existing building and street scene in terms of scale, height and form. The policy does not state any formulae for determining what constitutes an appropriate scale.

Background

  1. In July 2018 the Council received a planning application for the property neighbouring Mr X’s home. The application sought permission for a single storey rear extension. The property has benefited from previous extensions.
  2. The Council received objections from the parish council and residents. For this reason, it referred the application to its Planning Committee for determination.
  3. Members of the Planning Committee were provided with copies of the case officer’s report on the application. The report considered the proposal against Policy DP 26 and Neighbourhood Plan policies CNP1 and CNP10. The report said that:
  • The proposed extension has a smaller footprint than an earlier extension for the site that was allowed at appeal.
  • The appeal decision on the earlier application should be considered when considering this application.
  • The existing building already extended deeper into its plot than surrounding buildings but this was not incongruous to the locality.
  • The height, design and materials of the proposal would be harmonious with the parts of the building it would adjoin.
  • While the extension would mean the width of the combined extensions across the plot would increase considerably, the proportion of garden space taken up by the proposal would be limited in comparison to what would remain.
  • The massing of the proposed extension is modest and subservient in scale to the main building.
  • The proposal would be not visible from the road where it is located and would not be prominent in the view from a nearby footpath.

For these reasons the proposal was considered not to conflict with the relevant planning polices and to be a suitable addition to the building.

  1. The report also discussed the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring properties. It said, although the extension would be visible from neighbouring properties, it would not significantly harm their amenity. This was because:
  • there would be suitable separation distance from the adjoining properties and boundaries;
  • the proposal was of limited height; and:
  • the positioning the doors and windows was acceptable.
  1. Members of the Committee were also provided with commentary and photographs from Mr X who addressed members at the meeting on behalf of those objecting to the proposal. He had also written a letter to members highlighting his concerns prior to the meeting.
  2. Minutes of the meeting show the Committee discussed a number of issues including the relevance of the previous application for the site, the merits of the design and concerns about the balance between internal and external space at the site.
  3. Members of the Planning Committee granted permission.
  4. Mr X wrote to a senior planning officer and the Chairman of the Planning Committee asking them:
  • what was meant by the term “in scale”;
  • when does a building become “out of scale”; and
  • at what ratio of building to curtilage does a footprint become “out of scale”?

He also said the minutes of the meeting were incorrect because they did not reflect the nature of the documents provided by him to the Committee.

  1. Mr X did not receive a reply and so he made a complaint asking for his questions to be addressed.
  2. A senior planning officer replied to his complaint. The response said:
  • The minutes of the meeting were accurate and reflected his concerns about the proposal.
  • The Council does not have a policy requiring buildings to be “in scale” with surrounding properties but it does have a requirement to consider this when making decisions. She was satisfied this was considered when determining the application.

An apology was also offered for not replying to Mr X’s initial letter.

  1. Mr X remained unhappy and escalated his complaint. He reiterated the questions posed in his initial letter to the Council.
  2. The Council replied but did not alter its position. It explained that the term “in scale” was used to describe the relationship between the subject building of the application and the proposal.
  3. Mr X remained unhappy and approached the Ombudsman for assistance.

Analysis

Minutes of the Committee Meeting

  1. Mr X says the minutes of the Committee meeting do not accurately reflect the meeting as they do not provide details of the notes he gave to members. I do not consider this to be fault. The purpose of the minutes is to record the substantive matters discussed by members not to provide a word-for-word account of the meeting or set out what was said in documents provided during the meeting.
  2. I note the minutes state Mr X provided members with documents and that the Chairman asked members to consider these. I am content the minutes are accurate in this regard.
  3. The minutes also show members asked questions about the application and whether this constituted overdevelopment of the site. They also refer to members’ concerns about the loss of external space. While I appreciate the minutes do not use the term ‘scale’ they do record that members discussed the proportions of the proposal.

Response to Mr X’s enquiries about the scale and overdevelopment

  1. Mr X asked the Council to clarify when development would become ‘out of scale’ and suggested there must a rule for determining this. However, there is no such rule; it is for planning officers to use their professional judgement to determine this.
  2. This also applies to Mr X’s request for an acceptable ratio between a building’s curtilage and its footprint. The Council’s Development Plan and Neighbourhood Plan do not specify any set ratio.
  3. With regards to both of these matters the case officer report states why the proposal was deemed acceptable in terms of Development Plan policy DP26. I am therefore satisfied the Council had due regard to these matters when recommending approval of the application.
  4. I note that Mr X has asked why the Council did not have regard to Development Policy DP6 when considering the application. I do not consider this policy was relevant as the application was for an extension to an existing building and not a new dwelling.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have ended my consideration of this complaint as I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings