Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council decided his neighbour’s planning application. He says the case officer’s report had errors, meaning the decision to grant planning permission is unsound. He says he will lose light and space around his home. He also says the environment will be less pleasant. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complains about the way the Council decided a neighbour’s planning application. He complains that:
1. the case officer’s report contains two materially significant errors which means the Council’s decision to grant planning permission is unsound;
2. if the case officer had been aware of the position of the other bungalow in relation to the site, the Council may have reached a different decision; and,
3. if the case officer had been aware of the position of the other bungalow, the Council may have refused planning permission because of the significant impact of the proposed extension on his house.
2. Mr X says the environment will be less pleasant because of the development. He says he will lose light and space around his home, and this will change everything for him.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

5. The law says councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise. 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.
6. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
7. A council must be able to show it has considered the material planning considerations that are engaged by the planning process. Evidence is usually found in the case officer’s report. The records should show what considerations were taken into account and what the council made of them.
8. Normally, a case officer will prepare a report, assessing the application against relevant local plan policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.

What happened

9. Mr X lives in a cul-de-sac. Almost all the houses in the cul-de-sac are two-storey houses. Mr X’s neighbour, who owns a bungalow, applied to the Council for planning permission to extend the bungalow into a two-storey house.
10. The Council granted planning permission in November 2018. The case officer’s report described the bungalow as “the only bungalow [on the road] with surrounding properties all being two storey in nature”.
11. The case officer visited the site. In her report, the case officer considered the proposed distance between the bungalow and Mr X’s house and determined that this was in line with the local policy.
12. The case officer’s report outlined the objections to the proposed extension. The case officer addressed the concerns raised about loss of light, overbearing and loss of privacy. She determined that the proposed extension would not have a detrimental impact on neighbours or surrounding properties.
13. The Council approved the planning application on the grounds that it was not considered to be significantly detrimental to the character of the area, and it did not impact on residential amenity.
14. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2019. He said that the case officer’s report was wrong to say that the bungalow is the only bungalow-styled house with all surrounding properties being two storey. He said there is another bungalow in the cul-de-sac.
15. Mr X also complained that the case officer said the rear elevation of the extension would not extend past the rear elevation of his house. He said the extension upwards would extend past the rear elevation of his house. He said this was an error by the case officer.
16. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said the case officer was right to say that “all surrounding properties” were two storey. It said this did not include all properties in the cul-de-sac. It said the case officer referred to buildings immediately around that part of the cul-de-sac.
17. The Council acknowledged that there is another bungalow on the road but said it was not close to the site. It said that assessing the impact on the area’s character is not a simple comparison with all houses on the same road. It said it assessed the proposal against the houses along the main part of the road where the bungalow sits.
18. The Council said the phrase “extend past the rear elevation” meant the main part of the extended dwelling would not project rearwards any further than the existing rear wall. It said this had nothing to do with extending upwards in height. It said the case officer’s professional judgement was that the proposed extension did not appear overbearing to such a degree that would warrant refusing planning permission.
19. Mr X replied to the Council. He said that the Council’s definition, that “surrounding” meant “buildings immediately around”, was a narrow definition. Mr X said he believed the case officer meant “all surrounding properties in the cul-de-sac”, which was wrong because there is another bungalow on that road.
20. Mr X did not accept the Council’s comments about extension and elevation. He said any extension upwards would extend past the rear elevation, which is contrary to the case officer’s report.
21. The Council sent its stage two response to Mr X in April. It said it could not add anything further about the definition of the word “surrounding”. It acknowledged there is another bungalow, but said the application was assessed in line with its policies.
22. The Council accepted that the case officer saying the extension would not extend past the rear elevation of Mr X’s house was incorrect. It apologised for the incorrect description in the report. It said the report should have acknowledged the presence of Mr X’s house in relation to his neighbour’s bungalow, where an upwards extension would extend beyond the rear wall of Mr X’s house.
23. However, the Council said it spoke to the case officer and re-read her report. It said it considered the case officer had carried out a correct assessment of the proposed plan against the relevant policies. The case officer had visited the site and noted the presence and relationship of Mr X's house and the bungalow.
24. Mr X did not accept the Council’s definition of the word “surrounding”. He said the case officer did not take into account that there is another bungalow on the road, so her report was flawed. For this reason, Mr X said the Council should revoke planning permission.
25. The Council sent Mr X its stage three response at the end of April. It said it had little to add to its previous responses. It said planning permission had been granted and would not be revoked.
26. The Council said that the case officer did not say Mr X’s neighbour’s bungalow was the only bungalow in the cul-de-sac. It said that even if the phrase used was incorrect, this was a description and would not have changed the outcome. It said the application was assessed correctly.
27. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Errors in the case officer’s report

28. Mr X complains that the case officer’s report contains two materially significant errors which means the Council’s decision to grant planning permission is unsound (part a of the complaint). Mr X says the two errors are about the extension past his rear elevation, and the fact that there is another bungalow nearby.
29. The Council accepted in its stage two response that the case officer gave an incorrect description that the proposed extension would not extend past the rear elevation of Mr X’s house. It said the report should have acknowledged the presence of Mr X’s house in relation to his neighbour’s bungalow.
30. The Council accepted the description was wrong and apologised for this. I do not find that this error is significant enough to constitute fault.
31. I do not agree with Mr X that this error is materially significant. The case officer’s report goes into great detail about how the impact on Mr X’s property was assessed.
32. For this reason, I do not find fault with the Council.
33. Mr X says the case officer’s other error was to say that his neighbour’s bungalow is “the only bungalow [on the road] with surrounding properties all being two storey in nature”. He says there is another bungalow on the road.
34. While there is another bungalow on the road, it is not close to Mr X’s house. It is at the other end of the road. The case officer said, “all surrounding properties in the cul-de-sac [are] two storey”. This is factually correct. The neighbour’s bungalow is the only bungalow on that part of the road, and it is surrounded by two storey houses.
35. Further to this, the case officer assessed the proposed extension against the houses in close proximity, as she should have done. The decision was made correctly. The location of the other bungalow makes no material difference to the planning decision or outcome.
36. For these reasons, I do not find fault with the Council.

Reaching a different decision

37. Mr X complains that if the case officer had been aware of the position of the other bungalow in relation to the site, the Council may have reached a different decision (part b of the complaint).
38. There is nothing to indicate that the case officer was not aware of the other bungalow. There is no reason for this to have been included in her report. As I have said above, the case officer described the properties surrounding the site, none of which are bungalows. The fact that there is another bungalow right at the very start of the road (with Mr X’s house and the neighbour’s bungalow at the end) is immaterial to the planning decision.
39. I find that the Council made its decision using the correct information. I see nothing material that indicates the Council’s decision to grant planning permission was unsound or that it may have reached a different decision.
40. For these reasons, I do not find fault with the Council.

Refusing planning permission

41. Mr X complains that if the case officer had been aware of the position of the other bungalow, the Council may have refused planning permission because of the significant impact of the proposed extension on his house (part c of the complaint). Mr X says the Council discounted his objections.
42. As I have said above, there is nothing to indicate that the case officer did not know about the other bungalow. The case officer fully considered and answered Mr X’s objections. She also fully considered the impact of the proposed extension on Mr X’s house. This is shown in the case officer’s report.
43. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint because I find no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman