Summary: There was a minor administrative fault by the planning officer when completing a planning report form. This error did not affect the result of the planning application and so the error caused no injustice to Ms B. There was no fault in the consultation on the planning application or the officers site visit.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complains the Council did not tell her by letter of a planning application for a neighbours house.
2. She also complains that planning officers did not visit the site before they decided the planning application. And, that planning officers did not consider her privacy when deciding the planning application for a balcony at her neighbours 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 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

Notification of the planning application

8. Councils have to give publicity to planning applications.  The publicity needed depends on the development. In this case, the legal requirement was for a site notice or neighbour notification (minor development).
9. The Council’s policy on neighbour notification is to notify residents by a site notice. This policy complies with the legal requirements.
10. The Council has sent me photographic evidence to show the site notice in place. So, I can find no evidence of fault by the Council as it complied with the law and its own policy.
11. Ms B complains about where the Council put the site notice. She says the Council placed the site notice on the gate to the flats and so she would not have gone down the drive to look at the site notice.
12. I have looked at the site using satellite maps on the internet. The driveway gates the Council posted the site notice on are clearly visible from the public road as the driveway is short. I do consider the Council put the site notice in a reasonable location and cannot find fault on this point.

Site visit

13. Ms B complains the planning officer did not visit the site before making a decision.
14. The Council has said the planning officer carried out a site visit, but the Council does not have a record of the exact date. It has sent me photographs the planning officer took on the site visit. These photographs have no date but they do show the planning site notice on the neighbours gate so are clearly before the Council decided the planning application.
15. On the balance of probabilities, I find there is enough evidence to show the planning officer carried out a site visit before deciding the planning application. Without a date on the file, I cannot say for certain. But the fact there are photographs on file showing all the site show the officer visited and the planning site notice on the gate shows that this visit occurred during the consultation period for the planning application. So, I find no fault on this point.

Planning application decision

Key facts

16. Ms B’s main complaint is that she considers the decision to approve her neighbours planning application for a balcony is wrong. She was unaware of the planning application and so did not make an objection during the consultation period.
17. Ms B’s main garden is to the front of her house which is on the corner of two roads. At the bottom of her garden is the driveway to the flats, with the building containing the flat complained about along the other side of her garden away from the road.
18. The planning application proposed an extension to the existing terrace on the flat and a new roof light. The officer considered the application in a report.
19. The report says there was an objection from the Town Council. They said that ‘they objected due to overlooking as the proposed terrace would go right up to the boundary of the property and thus look straight into Ms B’s property’.
20. The planning officer’s comments on the application were that he noted the Town Council’s objections, but the terrace already overlooks a roof light to the neighbouring property and while the terrace is to be extended forwards, a solid wall constructed will ensure that no further overlooking can occur from a person sitting on the terraced area. The proposal, in the officer’s opinion, was acceptable and would not result in any significantly more overlooking to neighbouring properties than currently exists.
21. The planning officers report also noted comments from two Councillors (Ward Members). One said ‘I’m happy to delegate approval to you for this one, you have covered the Town Council’s objection and there are no others’. The other Councillor said ‘I note the comments made by the Town Council but am also mindful of the solid wall construction and no letter of objection from the neighbour, I am therefore happy to delegate approval’.
22. It is unfortunate that Ms B could not put forward her objections at the time. I understand that her main objections were that there is a significant change or intensification of use. Her view is that instead of overlooking from a distance over a raised and peaked roof light, the neighbours can now directly overlook.
23. In response to Ms B’s complaint, another planning officer visited. Ms B’s daughter said that he told her ‘the now completed extended balcony directly overlooked their garden and bedrooms and he would recommend some sort of screen be put up to protect their privacy’.
24. The second planning officer’s recollection of the conversation is different. He says when asked about a screen he explained that it would be possible if the neighbour agreed to some form of screening, but that they would not have to do this. The second planning officer said if Ms B wished to erect some form of screening above 2 metres it would need planning permission.
25. The written complaint response from the Council said ‘there was already a terrace close to the boundary of the property, the alterations to the terrace are not deemed to make a materially adverse impact on amenity and privacy of Ms B’s property’.

My analysis

26. My role is to look at the Council’s administrative process, not to decide whether the development is acceptable in planning terms.
27. The Council publicised the planning application as required by law and accordance with its policy.
28. The Council’s policy says that if objections are received from a statutory consultee, such as the Town Council, the decision should to be made in consultation with the Ward Members, unless the Ward Members wish the application to be determined by the Planning Committee. Clearly this was carried out in this case, as the Ward Members recorded they were happy to delegate approval to the planning officer.
29. The was an administrative fault by the planning officer. The Council has accepted the planning officer failed to complete the boxes on the planning report relating to amenity. So, I now have to consider whether the failure to fill in the boxes affected the decision made.
30. The planning officer did not say yes or no to three questions relating to amenity:
• Is the proposal acceptable with regard to any significant overlooking/loss of privacy issues?
• Has the proposal been designed to respect the amenities of neighbouring properties avoiding unreasonable loss of light or an overbearing impact?
• Is the proposal acceptable with regard to any significant change or intensification of use?
31. In the planning officers report he said that ‘the proposal is acceptable and would not result in any more significant overlooking to neighbouring properties than currently exists’. So, I do consider the officer considered the first question related to amenity and simply forgot to fill in the box. There is also no change or intensification of use, as the property is already a domestic dwelling so the proposal was acceptable on this point. There is also no loss of light or overbearing impact on Ms B’s property, so I consider the answers on this point would have been yes.
32. So, while there was a minor administrative error, I do consider the officer considered the three questions related to amenity and as the answers would have been yes, this has not affected the outcome of the planning application.
33. I can understand that Ms B will always feel some uncertainty that if she had been able to object, the outcome of the application may have been different. But, the second planning officer came to the same conclusion as the first, that the application was acceptable. Both planning officers were clearly aware there would be some overlooking of her property from the terrace.
34. Ms B clearly disagrees with the Council’s view that the overlooking is not significantly more than already existed. I accept that she feels the change is harmful to her amenity but I can see that two planning officers have visited and considered the development acceptable. I do consider the decision was one made in knowledge of the all the facts and I do not find any fault in the decision making process, apart from a minor error by the officer in forgetting to fill in 3 boxes on the planning report. I do not consider this minor error affected the decision making on the application.

Complaints process

35. Ms B has made complaints about the way the Council handled her complaint. The Council has already apologised for delay in providing a stage 1 and stage 2 response. It has apologised that Councillors did not tell her of the official complaints process and said that it will ensure that Councillors are aware. The Council has also apologised that Ms B’s daughter felt a telephone conversation was intimidating.
36. I can see the complaints process did not go smoothly for Ms B. But the Council has apologised and put measures in place. The delays did not affect the outcome or Ms B’s ability to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman. So, as the Council has already investigated and remedied these points I do not intend to investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. There was a minor administrative error by the planning officer when filling out the planning report but this did not cause injustice as the officer had clearly considered the issues concerned. This complaint is partially upheld.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman