Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council has failed to process their neighbours planning application correctly. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs X complain that the Council:
• Knowingly accepted their neighbour’s false statement of ownership
• Failed to consider their ownership of a party wall as a material planning consideration
• Wrongly referred to the rear courtyard as a car park
• Failed to consider boundary errors/discrepancies in the neighbour’s plans
• Failed to consider the covenants on the land
• Failed to consider the parking requirements which applied when the estate was built, instead applying a residential road design guide which was adopted in 2015
2. They say the Council has exposed them to abuse and humiliation from their neighbour and have devalued their property. They want the Council to pay all legal costs they may incur should legal action be necessary.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr & Mrs X and information from the Council. This includes Mr & Mrs X’s letters and emails to the Council and its responses. I have also considered the information available on the planning pages of the Council’s website.
5. Mr & Mrs X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr & Mrs X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to convert their garage to provide extra kitchen facilities with storage space. And to add a carport above his parking space in the rear courtyard.
7. The Council publicised the application. It wrote to the properties neighbouring the application site, including Mr & Mrs X. It also erected a site notice.
8. Mr & Mrs X objected to the application. Their reasons for objecting included, but were not restricted to:
• Impact on the area due to loss of a parking space
• The applicant had failed to declare their ownership of the party wall and falsified ownership boundaries on the submitted plans
• The impact of converting the attached garage to a room causing noise, possibly affecting their insurance and NHBC cover.
• Loss of value to their home because what is a link-detached property will become a semi-detached house
9. The planning officer visited the site and wrote a report on the proposal. This summarised Mr & Mrs X’s objections. The report notes:
• The location of the parking space and garage
• The rear area is mainly access, only the garage and only the parking space outside are allocated to the subject property
• No objection from the highway authority
• The town council had concerns over parking
10. The case officer considered:
• Converting the garage would not change its appearance. And the carport is at the rear so there would be no damaging impact to the street scene
• Using the garage as a living room would have no significant damaging impact on Mr & Mrs X
• The carport was open between the fence and the roof and therefore would have no significant damaging impact of light to Mr & Mrs X’s home.
• The number of parking spaces meets current guidance and the highways authority has no objection
11. The officer recommended approval. A senior officer agreed, and the case was approved under the Council’s scheme of delegated authority.

Assessment

12. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
13. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies, unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
14. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”. The NPPF says this presumption means, when deciding planning applications:

“where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless…any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in [the NPPF] taken as a whole.”

15. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
16. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.
17. In this case the Council publicised the application, enabling Mr & Mrs X to comment on the proposal.
18. A planning officer visited the site, so they were aware of the location of the application site, Mr & Mrs X’s home, the garage and the access area.
19. The officer fully considered the objections on material planning consideration grounds. Other objections raised by Mr & Mrs X such as covenants and party wall issues are not material planning matters and the Council cannot consider these.
20. Mr & Mrs X also complained to the Council that the applicant had included incorrect information about the boundary and ownership of the party wall in the planning application. The Council agrees that as Mr & Mrs X own the wall adjoining the applicants garage, the applicant should have put this in the application form under certificate B.
21. Whilst the information provided was wrong, I do not consider this caused Mr & Mrs X any injustice. The certificate is used to alert landowners that development may be built on their land and to ensure they have the opportunity to object. Mr & Mrs X were notified of the application and were able to object.
22. Looking at the application process (other than the acceptance of the incorrect information about ownership of the party wall supplied by the applicant), I have not seen any fault in the way the Council dealt with the application. It publicised the application, visited the site, consulted statutory consultees and considered all objections based on material planning considerations. The officer wrote a report explaining his reasons for recommending approval. And the case was approved in line with the Council scheme of delegation.
23. Mr & Mrs X say the Council has given their neighbour permission to do whatever he wants with their property. This is not true. The Council’s decision notice provided to the application says:

“Notwithstanding the planning permission herby approved, including site location plans, the applicant is advised that Planning Permission only means that in planning terms a proposal is acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Planning permission gives no additional rights to carry out the work, where that work is on someone else's land, or the work will affect someone else's rights in respect of the land. The applicant is therefore advised that permission should be attained from anyone that has a right to the land before carrying out the planning permission.”

24. If their neighbour has carried out work on their property without their permission it is the fault of the neighbour, not the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application which caused Mr & Mrs X any significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman