Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application. There was no fault in the consultation process or in the Council’s consideration of the application.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application. She said consultation letters were not delivered and the Council didn’t properly consider relevant design guidance and policy. Ms X said the resulting development is overbearing and dominating.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• Ms X’s complaint and supporting information.
• The Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint.
• The Council’s response to my enquiries.
• The planning documents for the recent application.
5. I wrote to Ms X and the Council with a draft of this decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  Permission is needed for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority.
7. As part of the consultation process for non-major development, the Council must display site notices or send neighbour notification letters. It must also show the application on its website.
8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations suggest they should not.

Planning considerations include things like:

• access to the highway.
• protection of ecological and heritage assets.
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.

Planning considerations do not include things like:

• views over another’s land.
• the impact of development on property value.
• private rights and interests in land.
4. Councils need to provide evidence to show they have considered the material planning considerations. This evidence is normally found in the case officer’s report and the planning decision notice.
5. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to give to any material consideration in deciding a planning application. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission.
6. When considering complaints about planning applications, we look for evidence the Council followed a proper process before making its decision. We expect to see evidence the Council has identified the material planning considerations raised by the application and properly considered them. The weight an officer gives to those considerations is a matter for their judgement. The Ombudsman will not come to a view on the merits of the planning application. We cannot criticise an officer’s professional judgement or assessment of the application if there is no evidence of fault in how they reached that judgement.

What happened

12. The Council received a planning application from Ms X’s neighbour on 12 October 2018. The application was for permission to build two single storey extensions at the rear of their property. The first extension was to the applicant’s existing sunroom. The second extension was at the rear of the applicant’s garage.
13. The Council carried out validation checks on 23 October 2018 and produced consultation letters to be sent to Ms X and eight other residents. Ms X said she, and other residents, did not receive the letters.
14. The planning officer assessing the application visited the site on 30 October 2018. Ms X disputes whether the site visit took place.
15. The planning officer completed their report on 26 November 2018. The Council approved the application and issued a decision notice granting planning permission.
16. Ms X contacted the Council on 10 June 2019 after she noticed building work had started at her neighbour’s house. Ms X said she, and other residents, had not been made aware the Council had given permission for the work. The Council said it sent consultation letters.
17. Ms X complained to the Council on 24 June 2019. She raised concerns with the consultation and decision-making process.
18. The Council responded on 10 July 2019 but did not uphold the complaint. It said it produced consultation letters and the application was properly assessed. The officer considered the impact on neighbouring properties. Given the significant distance between the houses, and the boundary treatment, the impact is considered acceptable.
19. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision on 4 August 2019. She said the Council could not confirm a site visit occurred, the plans didn’t include neighbour’s extensions, the property has greatly increased in size, and there was no evidence the impact of the development, privacy, or outlook were considered.
20. The Council sent its stage two complaint response on 23 August 2019 where it confirmed the application was properly assessed. It said officers use satellite imagery and online maps as well as site visits. The fact neighbouring extensions were not on the plans did not affect the decision as an officer visited the site. It disagreed the property was overdeveloped, overbearing or imposing. It recognised Ms X could see the extension from her property, but this does not make it unacceptable and there is no clear harm.
21. Ms X asked for a stage three review on 5 September 2019. The Council sent its final response on 19 September 2019 but did not alter its stance.
22. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 November 2019. She said the Council did not understand her complaint as it thought she objected because her neighbour’s development is visible, but she objected because it is overbearing and she did not think it had been properly considered.

Council’s response to my enquiries

23. The Council told me it attached some weight to the way boundary fencing and shrubbery could reduce the impact of the development, but it recognised this can be removed or changed. Most weight was given to the separation distance between the extension and the neighbouring houses.
24. The Council said it did not consider the impact on neighbours would be enough to justify refusing planning permission.

Back to top

Analysis

25. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made.
26. On the consultation process, the Council does not have to show the letters were delivered or received. The evidence I have seen shows the Council did produce consultation letters. It described the process and provided a list of the residents it wrote to. On balance I consider the letters were sent. While I appreciate Ms X’s frustration the letters did not reach her or her neighbours, I do not find the Council at fault.
27. Ms X questioned whether the planning officer visited the site. The officer recorded an appointment for the visit on the Council’s computer system. They also referred to features at the applicant’s property in their report. I do not consider they could have known this detail without visiting the site.
28. The Council must have regard to planning policies and guidance when making decisions. However, there are often competing interests which mean an application cannot fully comply with policy. We would not expect the Council to rigidly apply policy to its decisions in these circumstances. Officers must consider the application as a whole, on its merits, against the purpose and objectives of policies and plans.
29. I have read the planning officer’s report and I am satisfied the officer properly considered the application. In this case, I can see before the decision was made, the officer took account of:
• the proposal plans;
• the relevant planning history of the site;
• the impact on neighbouring properties;
• relevant national and local policy; and
• other material planning considerations.
30. Ms X is unhappy the planning officer’s report did not go into more detail about the impact on neighbours. In particular, on distance measurements of the extensions from the boundary and to neighbouring houses. She is also unhappy the report does not specifically address issues such as overdevelopment, outlook, overbearing and the level difference between the applicant’s house and neighbouring houses.
31. It would have been helpful if the officer’s report gave measurements for the separation distance between the extension and neighbouring houses. However, I was still able to understand the decision and there was no fault in not doing so. The Council may consider reminding planning officers to include separation distance measurements in future, where it is necessary.
32. It is unfortunate in this case Ms X and other residents could not make objections, as this would likely have led to a more detailed report or further consideration of some of their specific concerns. The fact Ms X and others could not object was not the fault of the Council.
33. Notwithstanding any objections which are raised, we expect to see proper consideration of the material issues and to be able to understand how a decision was made. The evidence I have seen shows the material issues were considered, including relevant policy and guidance and the impact on neighbouring amenity, and the application was properly assessed. The Council also addressed specific concerns Ms X raised in the complaints process.
34. There is a difference of opinion about the impact of the development, but the officer is entitled to make their own reasoned assessment and it does not mean there was fault in the decision. This is a matter of professional judgement. I cannot question the merits of the officer’s decision to recommend approval where the decision has been properly made.
35. The Council followed the process we would expect and took account of the material planning considerations before making its decision. I found no fault in the way the Council considered the application.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the consultation process or in the Council’s consideration of the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman