• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: There was fault in the wording of the planning application validation checklist. Reviewing the validation checklist to ensure that it is clear which documents are compulsory with a planning application and which are discretionary remedies the fault. The fault did not cause injustice as the planning officer had enough information to decide the planning application without a conservation area assessment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complains the Council did not adequately consider the impact of planning application on the neighbours and the conservation area.
2. She also complains the Council did not require the applicant to provide a heritage statement and front elevation drawings on a planning application for an extension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I read the papers put in by Ms B.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. I gave the Council and Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Ms B lives in flat, in a detached building. The owner of a ground floor flat in her building put in a planning application to erect a part single-storey, part two-storey side extension to replace an existing conservatory and rear staircase.
9. Ms B raised several objections to the planning application. The planning officers delegated report considered these. The Council granted planning permission in April 2018.
10. Ms B makes several specific complaints where she believes the Council is at fault. I intend to consider these in turn.

Planning application validation

11. Ms B complains the Council has contradicted its own planning application validation requirements. Ms B says the Council’s validation checklist requires applicants to supply a heritage statement (conservation area assessment) and a drawing of the proposal from the front elevation. She also complains the Council did not require a drainage assessment.
12. I have looked at the Council’s validation checklist for minor planning applications for this. The validation checklist list statutory national planning application requirements as:
    • Completed planning application form.
    • Site location plan.
    • A copy of other plans or drawings or information necessary to describe the subject of the application including
      1. a block plan of the site,
      2. existing and proposed elevations,
      3. existing and proposed floor plans,
      4. existing and proposed site sections,
      5. roof plans.
    • A completed ownership certificate.
    • A design and access statement.
13. The Council’s validation checklist also says the local information requirements may include some or all of the following:
    • Flood risk and drainage assessment.

The Councils guidance says this is needed for sites of one hectare of greater, proposals for developments in flood zone 2 and 3 and where the Environment Agency and/or other bodies have said there may be a drainage problem.

2. • Listed building appraisal and conservation area assessment.

The Council’s guidance says ‘for any development in a conservation area or affecting the character of a conservation area, a conservation area assessment will be required if it is not already referred to in the design and access statement.

Front elevation drawings

14. Ms B complains the applicant did not provide a drawing of the front elevation. I have looked at the validation requirements above and they do not specifically describe which elevation drawings are compulsory for the planning application to be valid. The checklist says that ‘plans should be sufficient to describe the site’.
15. In response to my enquiries the Council said that ‘the impact of the works on the front elevation would have no discernible impact on the appearance of the building given the extension is behind the garage and the associated deep set back’.
16. I can find no fault with the Council. It considered the applicant supplied sufficient plans to describe the proposal and could decide the application on the information supplied. Given the proposed development would be largely hidden behind an existing garage from the front elevation, I cannot see how front elevation plans would have given the planning officer or neighbours extra information which would have led to a different decision.

Flood risk and drainage assessment

17. The applicant stated on the planning application form the proposal was not in a Zone 2 or 3 flood risk area and would not increase the flood risk elsewhere. So, I do not consider the applicant needed a flood risk and drainage assessment for the planning application to be valid. The Council has said that as the new extension partly replaces an existing extension and there is existing hard surfacing to the rear of the properly, there was no concern about flooding, so the application did not need a drainage assessment. I can find no fault leading up to this decision, it is in line with the Council’s validation checklist.

Conservation area assessment

18. The proposal was in a conservation area so according to the Council’s validation checklist it may require a conservation area assessment. The checklist then goes on to say a conservation area assessment was required if it is not already referred to in the design and access statement. So, it is unclear whether the conservation area assessment may be required or is required. I consider there is a minor administrative fault in this case, as the wording in the checklist does not make it clear if the conservation assessment is compulsory or discretionary.
19. I now have to consider what injustice this fault caused. I.e. would the result of the planning application have been different if there had been a conservation area assessment. I note the Council’s argument that if the application had been for a house, rather than a block of flats it would not need a conservation area assessment. The Council also argues the information supplied on the application was enough to understand the impact of the proposal on the building and the conservation area.
20. The planning officer’s report summarised resident’s objections on character/appearance, design and heritage impact concerns. The objection to the application because of a lack of design and access and conservation area assessment was in the report. In the report, the planning officer commented the proposal did not meet the threshold for a design and access statement. The planning officer said that for a minor scheme of this stage a conservation area assessment was not necessary as the works were a limited extension at the rear of the property and did not involve demolishing original architectural features.
21. The planning officer clearly considered the impact of the proposal on the conservation area in the planning report. The planning officer noted the garage and vegetation would largely screen the works from the front elevation. The report also noted that existing gaps between buildings would be retained due to the extensions height relative to the main building. The officer said that considering the design of other properties and the presence of varying side and rear extensions to other properties, the proposal would not harm the broader character and appearance of the conservation area.
22. There was fault in the Council’s administration. The Council’s validation checklist does not clearly say that officers have discretion to consider an application without a conservation area assessment. To remedy this, I propose the Council reviews its checklist to make this clear. I do not consider the fault caused any injustice to Ms B. I consider the planning officer considered the impact on the conservation area, the other properties, the street scene and gaps between buildings. I do not consider the planning officer’s view would have altered if the applicant had included a conservation area assessment.

Details of materials

23. Ms B complains the plans do not adequately detail the materials for the first floor and there is no condition requiring the applicant provide them. From looking at the plans the first floor is brickwork (planning condition requires brickwork to match), glazing and charcoal grey metal (from the agents letter). I can find no evidence the Council did not ensure the proposed materials are clear.

Construction management plan

24. Ms B complains the Council has not required the applicant to provide a construction management plan (CMP). The Council has said that it needs CMP’s on large strategic planning applications and encourages them on other applications where there are construction issues. The Highgate neighbourhood plan requires CMP’s where planning permission would produce a significant movement of goods or materials by road. Given the small nature of the development, I can find no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide a CMP.

Impact on resident’s amenity

25. Ms B complains the Council did not impose a condition preventing the use of the roof as a terrace. The Council has said the plans show no means of access to the roof or safety railings so there is no indication the roof will be a roof terrace.
26. After looking at the plans, I can understand Ms B’s point as the floor plan drawing does appear to show a door to the first floor. However, the planning officer responded to this concern by writing to the agent and the agent clarified there is no door, only an opening window, as shown on the elevation and 3D plans. The Council has said that as the description of the development does not include the use of the flat roof as a roof terrace, use of the roof as amenity space would be in breach of the planning consent if this were to occur.
27. I can find no fault in the officer’s consideration of the first floor roof. The planning officer considered neighbour’s concerns, asked the applicant for more information and decided the application did not require a planning condition, as use of the roof as a terrace would be in breach of the planning consent.
28. The planning officers report considers the extra impact the extension would have on neighbour amenity. The report noted the angled glazing at ground level would not afford views from any height and could be screened by vegetation. The report also notes the window to the first floor of the extension would face the rear garden in a similar way to other windows in the same building. The report notes the applicant also has a large bay window which already overlooks the gardens, as do the windows of other flats in the building. The officer decided there would always be some overlooking from flats in a shared building with a shared garden and the proposal would not lead to a material change to their privacy.
29. I can find no evidence there was fault in the planning officers consideration of the impact of the extension on residents amenity in the garden. The officer clearly considered the issue and residents objections but reached a view that several different flats overlooked the rear gardens and so the change was not unacceptable.

Agreed action

30. The Council reviews its validation checklist to ensure it is clear when documents are required and when there is discretion within 3 months of the date of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation of the complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there was fault by the Council. I consider the remedy proposed above is satisfactory to remedy the fault as no injustice was caused to Ms B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page