Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to properly consider an application for an extension near his home which affects his home and the character of the area. The Council says it considered all relevant policies and its case officer wrote a short report on the proposed minor development. The Ombudsman finds the Council decided the application having before it all relevant information including the complainant’s objections and therefore acted without fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to:
• Properly consider a planning application for his neighbour’s extension in line with planning law and practice;
• Properly assess the site and make proper comparisons with other roof extensions allowed by the Council;
• Properly consider the likely impact on Mr X’s amenity.
2. Mr X says he undertook extensive research when responding to the publicity given to the application. Mr X wants the Council to provide its staff with better training on design and the impact of ‘minor’ applications to improve the quality of the Council’s planning decisions. Mr X says he must live with the extension’s impact on his amenity. But for the Council’s faults Mr X believes the Council would have refused permission for the extension or achieved a better design.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If 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

6. In considering this complaint I:
• Contacted Mr X and read the information presented with his complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and examined its response;
• Researched relevant law, guidance and policy;
• Shared with Mr X and the Council my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Development of land (including its material change of use) needs planning permission).
8. Councils may grant planning permission subject to conditions on the development and use of land.
9. Councils must give publicity to planning applications.  The publicity depends on the nature of the development. Council must publish all applications their website. In this case, the Council needed to give publicity through a site notice or letter to neighbours as a minor development)
10. Councils must decide planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
11. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, and not 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.
12. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on valid material planning reasons.
13. General planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g. in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities).
14. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
15. Under the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement planning officers must alert neighbours to a planning application either by erecting a site notice or by letter.
16. The Council’s Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents set out the Council’s policies on house extensions. These recommend approving dormer extensions on the back of properties where possible and encourages keeping dormers at or below existing ridge height. The policies say extensions should not negatively impact on the property or street scene.

What happened

17. In July 2018 the Council received an application from Mr X’s neighbour for planning permission to create a rear dormer extension and change the roof design. The Council sent letters to neighbours in July, August and September 2018 reflecting the changes the applicant made to the application. The case officer visited the site, took photographs, including one from inside Mr X’s property to help the case officer reflect on the likely impact on Mr X’s home.
18. Mr X objected to the plans as they evolved. Mr X’s letters show how the proposed extension would in his view result in an overbearing and disproportionate feature in the street scene. Mr X says the extension would have a dominant impact on his garden and the dining area in his home. Mr X says the proposal does not reflect the characteristic features of houses in the area. Mr X challenged the accuracy of the plans and outlined the Council’s planning policies the proposals failed to reflect. The design would change the house’s existing roof design. A first for the neighbourhood.
19. The case officer’s report summaries the objections received setting them out as:
• The scale and form of the dormer is overbearing and a disproportionate feature;
• The design is not in keeping with the area;
• The dormer will be visible from neighbouring roads;
• The plans presented are not accurate;
• The dormer will affect a neighbour’s kitchen/morning room and garden due to the dominant and overbearing character of the design;
• The development is contrary to Local Plan policies and the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document.
20. In the case officer’s report, the officer explains the applicant has amended the application. The report refers to the Supplementary Planning Documents which encourage placing dormer extensions at the back of properties. The report addresses objections. It considers whether the windows will overlook neighbours and confirms the proposed dormer does not exceed the present ridge height.
21. The case officer said other extensions in the area include side and rear dormers visible from other roads. The case officer’s report says the dormer would not have a significant impact on the living conditions in Mr X’s home. Mr X disagrees. Mr X says the case officer’s report gives little detail and does not accurately reflect the character of the other dormers in the area.
22. The case officer recommended approval. A senior officer reviewed the report and examined photographs of the site. The senior officer reviewed the site assessment and approved the recommendation. The Council issued planning permission.
23. In post decision correspondence with Mr X the Council says it recognises the design is not the same as others. However, it says it does not significantly alter the neighbourhood’s character and so it did not refuse permission.
24. In response to my enquiries the Council says it is reviewing the quality of its case officers’ reports. The Council has a duty to complete the planning procedure usually within eight weeks. To achieve that it has streamlined the procedure encouraging officers to use short reports. The Council says it can always improve the quality of reports but does not accept this report failed to identify the material planning considerations the Council must consider. The report shows in the Council’s view the case officer’s professional judgement of the merits of the application and addresses the concerns raised by Mr X. The Council says Mr X expects the case officer’s report to include detail and provide analysis which is disproportionate to the scale of the development proposed.

Analysis – has there been fault leading to injustice?

25. My role is to examine how the Council considered the planning application. It is not to take a view on the merits of the application or the case officer’s professional judgement. If there has been fault, I must consider if that has resulted in a different decision and if it has, consider a remedy.
26. Planning law and guidance do not prevent councils granting planning permission for development that infringes planning policies. They can, provided the Council has considered all material planning considerations. It is a matter of judgement.
27. The Council gave publicity to the application and amendments to that application by writing to neighbours. That gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on the application and amendments. I find the Council acted without fault in giving publicity to the applications.
28. Neighbours may express a view and the Council must consider any comments. They do not have to enter correspondence about the issues raised. The Council must consider the material planning considerations raised. The Council must decide if the objections show it should refuse the application or impose planning conditions to make it acceptable.
29. The case officer visited the site, considered the likely impact on the street scene, character of the area and considered the constraints in the local plan and supplementary planning documents. The Council must decide each application on its material planning merits. It is for the decision maker to decide what weight to give to the planning policies and guidance. Therefore, it is possible to grant planning permission for a development that infringes planning policies and guidance.
30. Reports should reflect the planning policies engaged by the application and the objections received. They should set out case officer’s professional judgement and recommendation for approval or refusal. The Council is reviewing its reporting in response to the complaint. It says a longer report would not change the recommendation or decision. The case officer’s report addresses the material planning considerations including the objections received. The case officer had the benefit of visiting the site and the photographs taken when deciding the application. The case officer and reviewing officer had before them all relevant information including Mr X’s objections when deciding the application. I find the Council considered the application without fault and so I cannot challenge the merits of that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

31. In completing my investigation, I find the Council acted without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman