Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council did not notify them of their neighbour’s planning application and did not consider how the new extension would impact on access to their drive. There was no fault by the Council. It sent a notification letter which Mr and Mrs B did not receive. It properly assessed the planning application. It investigated a subsequent breach of planning permission without delay.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council:
• Failed to notify them of their neighbour’s planning application to extend their home, and this effects access to the shared driveway. Indeed, they say most of the neighbours did not receive notification;
• Failed to properly consider the impact on them, particularly that the access to their driveway is now limited by the neighbour’s extension; and
• The Council took too long to investigate a breach of the planning permission.
2. This means the complainants lost the opportunity to comment on the planning application and they find it very difficult to access their driveway. Relations between the neighbours have become very difficult and Mr B feels he can no longer live at the house.

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 considered the information provided by Mr and Mrs B, including photographs of the site, and discussed the issues with Mrs B. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the planning documents. Both parties received a draft of this statement and were invited to comment on it. I have taken the comments of both parties into account before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr and Mrs B live in a residential area. Their house is off the highway and at the end of a short, shared driveway. The other house sharing the driveway applied for permission to build a side and rear extension. The side extension is closest to Mr and Mrs B’s home and was to contain a garage with an extra bedroom above. The Council’s notification policy says that it must write to the neighbours and give them the opportunity to comment on the application. The Council says it did this. Mr and Mrs B say they did not receive the letter.
7. The Council assessed the planning application. Its planning policy says that a new garage must leave a hardstanding of 5.5 metres in length and 2.4 metres in width between the garage door and the highway. This is so a car can still be parked there and not obstruct the highway. The Council treated the shared driveway as though it were highway and decided that the extension would leave enough space to meet the policy requirements and the highway would not be obstructed. It granted planning permission.
8. The neighbour started to build the extension and on 12 November, Mrs B contacted the Council by telephone querying whether they had permission to do so, followed by an email on 16 November. The Council’s enforcement officer visited the site on 11 December. Its investigation revealed that although the neighbour had planning permission for the extension, he was not building in accordance with the approved plans. There was no opening for a garage door, because the neighbour intended the ground floor extension to be used as a bedroom. The Council told the neighbour on 12 December he would have to submit a retrospective planning application.
9. The neighbour submitted the application and the Council notified nearby residents. This time Mr and Mrs B received the notification letter and objected to the application. Mr and Mrs B’s main concern is that although the extension leaves enough room for the neighbour to park on their own drive, it impedes Mr and Mrs B’s access to their drive.
10. The shared drive is single track, with the neighbour’s own drive turning off first and then Mr and Mrs B’s own drive turning off next. The neighbour’s drive had been long so that they parked quite far down away from the turning off the shared driveway. With the extension built, Mr and Mrs B have very little room to turn into their driveway around the neighbour’s car and have difficulty getting out.
11. The Council considered the retrospective application. Its policy says that there should be a hardstanding of 4.8m in length and 2.4m in width in front of an extension. The neighbour’s extension meets this requirement. The Council considered Mr and Mrs B’s objection. However, it had already approved the extension in the earlier permission and this application to use it as living space did not alter Mr and Mrs B’s access. The Council had already found this to be acceptable.
12. Mr and Mrs B complained to the Council and to the Ombudsman. They say that other councils have requirements that a turning circle or space is kept in this kind of situation.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr and Mrs B?

13. The extension has meant that the neighbour parks at the very top of their drive and has made it awkward for Mr and Mrs B to access their driveway. This has caused friction between the neighbours and Mr and Mrs B feel they can no longer live there as it has become so unpleasant.
14. However, there is no fault in how the Council considered the planning applications. Planning officers visited the site, understood the proposal and assessed it in accordance with the policy. Mr and Mrs B say they are not convinced the Council properly considered access to their property. The Council’s planning report on the first application does not specifically consider this. However, it does consider the planning policy which requires room for a car to be parked off road without obstructing the highway and finds that the proposal complies with the policy and does not impact on the highway. There was no fault here as the Council properly applied its planning policy.
15. The new extension may have made Mr and Mrs B’s access more awkward as it forces their neighbour to park at the very top of the drive, but the design of these houses was always that Mr and Mrs B would need to negotiate that corner. There was no basis for the Council to refuse the application, given that it accorded with the policy and does not encroach on Mr and Mrs Bs property.
16. The Council considered Mr and Mrs B’s objection to the second application, but could not refuse permission on that basis because the extension itself had already been approved. There is no basis for me to criticise the officers’ judgement because there was no flaw in how they assessed the applications.
17. Mr and Mrs B did not receive notification of the first application. However, the Council’s records show this was sent and so it is more likely than not that it was. That the notification did not arrive was not fault by the Council. In any case, the Council properly assessed the application and so the outcome is unlikely to have been different even had Mr and Mrs B objected.
18. The Council investigated the breach of planning in good time. There was no delay.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman