Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve their neighbour’s planning application, which they say will reduce light and privacy in their home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve their neighbour’s planning application for a large house extension.
2. Mr and Mrs X say the extension will reduce light from their home, reduce privacy and have an overbearing impact on them. They also say the planning case officer misled them by indicating he would not support the application.

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 complaint and discussed it with Mrs X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
6. I gave the Council and Mr and Mrs X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision, but I received no responses.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
9. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
11. Where planning permission is granted, developers sometimes find it necessary to make changes and sometimes this happens during the planning application process.
12. If the Council decides the changes are ‘material’, it may require that the whole process begins again with a fresh application. However, if the changes are considered ‘non-material’ the Council may allow changes without re-starting the process, but only if:
• it considers the procedural fairness of doing so. It should consider whether it might deprive any third party of the opportunity of making representations they might want to make; and
• the nature of the application remains the same, so the amended proposal is still substantially the same as the original.
13. Not all planning decisions are made by council planning committees. Councils may delegate decisions to planning officers to make some decisions, restricted to circumstances set out in delegation schemes. Delegation schemes are found in a council’s constitution.

What happened

14. Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a large, two-storey rear extension to their home. The extension was planned to be built very close to their boundary.
15. A planning case officer visited the site to assess it. The case officer left a card at Mr and Mrs X’s home, asking them to call to arrange a visit. The case officer visited them and viewed the application site from their home.
16. Mr and Mrs X say the case officer indicated it would be difficult to support the application because of the impact it would have on them. They say he suggested they object to it. Mr and Mrs X also say the case officer told them the decision would be considered by the Council’s planning committee.
17. The developer submitted a revised plan, in which the extension was slightly smaller. The Council reconsulted, giving Mr and Mrs X an opportunity to comment on the amended plans.
18. Mr and Mrs X did send the Council written objections to the original and amended application plans.
19. The case officer wrote a report with his views and recommendations relating to the application. It included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and design and materials; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
20. In the report, the case officer recognised the extension was large and would have an impact on Mr and Mrs X’s amenity, but concluded the harm caused did not justify refusal. A senior officer approved the application using delegated powers.

My findings

21. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. Where we find fault in the decision-making process, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant. To do this, we need evidence to show that, but for the fault, the outcome would have been different.
22. The case officer’s report shows that, before it made its decision, the Council gave the public and other consultees an opportunity to comment. The Council took account of comments, along with plans of the proposal, relevant policy and guidance and the main material planning considerations. This is the process we would expect, and in these circumstances, I find no fault in the way the decision was made.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I completed my investigation as there was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman