Summary: Mrs C complains the Council failed to consider properly a planning application for an extension at her neighbour's property. Mrs C says she suffers from an unacceptable development which adversely affects her amenity and outlook. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains the Council failed to consider properly a planning application for an extension at her neighbour's property. In particular, Mrs C says the Council:

• wrongly accepted plans that did not accurately represent her bedroom window position;
• provided an incorrect description of the application;
• failed to notify all affected neighbours;
• failed to record and consider adequately the relevant planning history of the site;
• failed to reconsult on amended plans; and
• provided incorrect information about the date it received the amended plans.

2. Mrs C says because of the Council's fault, she suffers from an unacceptable development which adversely affects her amenity and outlook.

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 provided by Mrs C. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mrs C. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  Permission is required for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) or deemed to be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the Council’s local development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. It constitutes guidance in drawing up plans and is a material consideration in determining applications.
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.
9. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions for example 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.
10. Councils have a statutory duty to publicise applications and to consider representations (either for or against the application) which people make. But that is not the same thing as consulting with the public.

Key events

11. The Council received an application for a ‘garage conversion, installation of front bay window and first floor extension on front elevation.’ The statutory publicity requirement for this type of application was for a site notice or notice to any adjoining owner or occupier. The Council sent neighbour notification letters.
12. The Council’s notification letter of 2 June 2017 wrongly described the proposed development as a single storey front bay window and part first floor rear extension. The Council sent further neighbour notification letters on 27 June with the correct description of the proposed development as a single storey front bay window and part first floor front extension. The letters highlighted that this was an amended description. The Council has confirmed it sent notification letters to those addresses with an adjoining boundary to the application site and these included Mrs C’s property.
13. As the Council sent revised letters highlighting the amended description from rear to front extension, I do not see the administrative error in the initial description can be reasonably said to have affected the consultation process. There was no requirement to send notification letters to those properties on the opposite side of the road as suggested by Mrs C. I am satisfied the Council met the required statutory publicity requirements.
14. The Council subsequently received amended plans. It is possible for an applicant to suggest changes to an application before the LPA has determined the proposal. It is also possible after the consultation period for the LPA to ask the applicant if it would be possible to revise the application to overcome a possible objection. It is at the discretion of the LPA whether to accept such changes, to determine if the changes need to be reconsulted on, or if the proposed changes are so significant as to materially alter the proposal such that a new application should be made. Where an application has been amended it is up to the LPA to decide whether further publicity and consultation is necessary in the interests of fairness. In deciding what further steps may be required LPAs should consider whether, without re-consultation, any of those who were entitled to be consulted on the application would be deprived of the opportunity to make any representations that they may have wanted to make on the application as amended.
15. Mrs C says she subsequently reviewed the plans online and noted the new plan had been added which had not been available to view when she had made her representations. The plan showed the extension would not block the 45 degree line from her bedroom window but only because it wrongly showed the position of the bedroom window which is actually 1.6m further back than shown in the plan. Mrs C says the Council has accepted an incorrect plan which significantly misrepresented the impact of the extension on her amenity.
16. Mrs C’s representation to the Council dated 22 June 2017 refers to the impact of the proposals on her bedroom window as the extension would extend some 7 metres in front of the window which was not evident from the plans. The case officer’s report sets out that the amended plans had been provided by the applicant to address Mrs C’s objections.
17. The Council decided there was no requirement to send further notification letters to adjoining properties as the amended plans showed the proposed development was of a smaller scale than the original and the proposed extension was set back further from the front and side than in the original plans.
18. The Council says it received the amended plans on 27 June 2017 and that this information was recorded on its planning administration system which date stamps all scanned and uploaded documents and does not allow the time/date details to be changed. The revised plan was publicly available on 14 July 2017. The Council accepts this should have been published shortly after receipt on 27 June but there was a delay due to a case officer handover as the original case officer was leaving the authority. The Council has completed a recent review of processes and systems in its planning administration team and have significantly improved validation times including the uploading of plans to a maximum of 48 hours.
19. On balance, I do not consider the Council acted with fault in not reconsulting on the amended plans. However, it would have been good practice to have alerted Mrs C as the changes were as a result of her earlier objection and it is likely she would have wished to comment on them further. This is compounded by the revised plans not being publicly available until 14 July. The Council may wish to consider reviewing its procedures about reconsultation on amended plans in the interests of fairness.
20. The responsibility for the accuracy of plans generally rests with the applicant, and not the LPA receiving a planning application although the Ombudsman would expect officers to identify significant and obvious errors. I am satisfied there were no such significant and obvious errors in this case.
21. The Council has confirmed one of its RICS Chartered Surveyors has verified the accuracy of the architects amended plans using images captured from Google Earth and SwiftMap (a licensed and up to date IT product used by the Estates and Asset Management Team who manage the Council's property portfolio).  SwiftMap has also been used to verify the measurements. The Council has provided the evidence of this review which confirmed the architects amended plans which its planners used to determine the application were accurate, reasonably to scale and did not misrepresent the proposed development in comparison to Mrs C’s property. The measurements support the 45-degree test annotated by the architect on the amended plans were correct and were accurately reflected in the case officer’s report.
22. In response to an earlier draft of this statement, Mrs C provided an annotated copy of the amended plans received by the Council to highlight various discrepancies. Mrs C says the rear of her house is further back than shown on the amended plan and the shape and dimensions of her house are different. Mrs C say this means the development failed the 45 degree test.
23. The plans provided to the Council have a 45 degree line indicated by the architect to show the relationship of the first floor elevation to Mrs C’s window. This information is reflected in the case officer’s report. However, the representation provided by the developer of Mrs C’s property shows her ground floor elevation rather than the first floor. Mrs C’s annotated plan shows the 45 degree line from the first floor which is slightly further back into the site and this does show a small intrusion to the 45 degree line taken from the centre of the first floor front facing bedroom window. I have considered if any discrepancy here should have been identified by the case officer at the time but do not believe any error in the plans on this point was significant and obvious. In the circumstances, I do not consider any failure to do so constitutes fault. I also note any intrusion is relatively minor and do not consider it would have altered the outcome of the Council’s overall assessment of the application if it had been identified during the application process.
24. Mrs C says the Council failed to include and consider all relevant planning history at the site and refers to the case officer’s report not highlighting the first floor extension was set back 3.2m from the main front wall in a previous application to make it subordinate to the house and reduce its impact on her bedroom and to comply with planning policy. Mrs C says she emphasised this in her objection above but it was not considered and there was also no reference to the previous enforcement reports at the site.
25. It is important to note that earlier decisions do not set precedents. Each planning application must be decided on its own merits against planning policies and other considerations that exist at the time. The Council also says it did not include the enforcement history in the case officer's report as it was not considered relevant to the current proposal as it related to two roof lights, a loft conversion and rear dormer.
26. 
    The Ombudsman looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.
27. The case officer’s report provides a detailed assessment of the amended plans and the impact of the proposals on Mrs C’s residential amenity before recommending approval. I am satisfied the Council had enough relevant information to reach a sound decision and properly considered the material planning considerations when doing so including Mrs C’s representations. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the development.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in its decision making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman