Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to notify him of a neighbour’s planning application. The Council agreed it should have notified him and has apologised. We do not consider the fault affected the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Northumberland County Council (the Council) failed to notify him of a planning application for a neighbouring property, denying him the opportunity to comment on the proposals. He was not aware of the building work until it started, and he considers it has adversely affected his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, considered the comments and documents the Council provided and those available on its website. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Permitted development

6. Parliament has given a blanket planning permission (‘permitted development’) for many minor works. This includes rear extensions on detached houses up to four metres in height and four metres in length. This means that extensions within these limits do not require planning permission.

Publicity for planning applications

7. Councils are required to publicise planning applications.  In cases of minor development, the Council has to either post a site notice or notify neighbours by letter.

What happened

8. Mr B lives on a new housing estate. His neighbour applied for planning permission for a rear extension (less than the dimensions allowed by the permitted development rules) to their detached house. The Council said the permitted development rights had been removed from the neighbouring property which meant that they had to apply for planning permission.
9. The Council notified some neighbours but not Mr B. The planning officer carried out a site visit and noted that only two neighbours had been notified. They arranged for a site notice to be posted on 3 April 2019. A photograph of the notice was posted on the website on 29 May 2019. It is dated 3 April 2019, but it is difficult to identify the location. Mr B says he did not see the notice and it was not posted near his property.
10. The Council received no objections to the proposals. Officers decided the application under their delegated powers. The officer report noted that the extension would normally be allowed under permitted development rules. It also considered the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties including Mr B’s, noting that the property was set at an angle away from the application site and would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity. The report also noted that there were no windows in the side elevations so it would not have an adverse impact on Mr B’s privacy.
11. The Council granted planning permission. Mr B was unaware of the application or the permission until building work started shortly afterwards. He complained to the Council questioning why he had not been notified and given the chance to comment on the proposals.
12. The Council responded explaining how and why it had granted planning permission, including the fact that permitted development rights had been removed. It acknowledged it should have notified Mr B as it did notify two other neighbours. It apologised for the failure to do so and acknowledged Mr B’s loss of opportunity to object. However, it did not consider his comments would have changed the decision because there were no material planning reasons to justify refusing or altering the proposals.
13. Mr B escalated his complaint and received a further response from the Council. The Council noted that its previous response was incorrect, as it had now discovered that permitted developments rights had not been removed from any of the properties in that street. It apologised for this oversight but noted that planning permission had been properly granted.
14. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman. He says it affects his view and the appeal of his property.

Analysis

15. The Council accepts it was at fault for failing to notify Mr B of the planning application and has apologised for the frustration and lack of opportunity to comment.
16. I have considered whether this error caused an injustice which warrants further remedy or action. Given that the Council considered the impact of the proposals on Mr B’s amenity and concluded that there was insufficient impact to warrant refusal, I cannot conclude the outcome would have been different had Mr B objected to the proposals.
17. It now transpires that the proposals would have been allowed under the permitted development rules, without the need to obtain planning permission. So, this confirms my view that Mr B’s comments would not have changed the outcome as the extension could have been built without further scrutiny.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed my investigation as the Council’s failure to notify Mr B of the planning application did not cause him an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman