Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to consider the impact of a neighbour’s extension on her property and failed to consult on amended plans. The Council is at fault for not recording its decision not to conduct further consultation and for lack of transparency in its decision making. The Council should apologise to Miss X and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of a neighbour’s proposed extension on her residential amenity before granting planning permission.
2. Miss X also complains the approved plans were significantly different from those consulted on and that the Council did not notify her of the amended plans.
3. Miss X says the resulting extension blocks all light to her living room for several hours a day.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance. I have also considered the information about the planning applications which are available for the public to view on the Council’s website.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. Miss X owns a property in a converted barn in a rural area.
11. Miss X’s neighbour made a planning application for an extension.
12. Miss X objected to the proposed extension because she said it would cast a significant shadow over the only window in her living room for most of the day.
13. The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer also objected to the plans as the proposed extension was not in keeping with the character of the building.
14. In May 2019, the applicant’s planning agent met with the Historic Buildings Officer to discuss the application. The Council says it has no minutes of this meeting. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided a sketch made by the Historic Buildings Officer to suggest to the agent what might be an acceptable design.
15. The agent then submitted amended plans which reflect this sketch. The amended plans increase the ridge height of the proposed extension by one metre.
16. The Council did not conduct a further consultation and did not notify Miss X about the amended plans. Miss X says had she been notified, she would have presented further evidence about the impact of the increased ridge height on her amenity.
17. In July 2019, the Council approved the planning application.

Analysis

Was there fault?

18. Government guidance on Consultation and pre-decision matters says:

“Where an application has been amended it is up to the local planning authority to decide whether further publicity and consultation is necessary in the interests of fairness.”

19. However, in deciding whether further consultation is necessary:

“planning authorities should consider whether, without re-consultation, any of those who were entitled to be consulted on the application would be deprived of the opportunity to make any representations that they may have wanted to make on the application as amended.”

20. Given Miss X already had concerns about overshadowing, it is likely she would have wanted to comment on the increased ridge height of the amended plans.
21. I asked the Council for evidence of how it decided there was no need to conduct further consultation or publicity for the amended plans. In its response, the Council said the officer was aware of Miss X’s concerns and “did not consider that the amended plans raised any new issues that had not already been submitted to the Council.” However, the Council has not provided any contemporaneous record of this decision. This is fault. The Council should have considered whether further consultation or publicity was necessary and recorded its decision.
22. In response to the original plans, the Historic Buildings Officer objected to any extension on the Western elevation, saying:

“Adding a new room to the external west wall is not in character with the historic use of the east facing building”.

23. However, following the meeting with the agent in May 2019, the Historic Buildings Officer’s position had changed and said the amended plans were “acceptable subject to conditions on joinery, roofing and details”.
24. Because there was no further consultation on the amended plans, there is no report from the Historic Buildings Officer explaining why the amended plans were acceptable. The Council’s officer’s report setting out the reasons for approval does not address this either.
25. Transparency is an important part of the local planning process. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement says one of its objectives is that:

“Relevant documentation should be accessible to all, so opinion is fully informed.”

26. By not keeping any minutes of the meeting in May 2019, and not making publicly available any documentation to explain the Historic Building Officer’s change in opinion, the Council failed to follow its own policy. This is fault.

Did the fault cause injustice?

27. The Council is at fault for failing to make or keep records of its decision not to consult on or publicise the amended plans and for lack of transparency in the decision making process. This caused Miss X unnecessary frustration and uncertainty. This is an injustice.
28. Nevertheless, the Council’s officer’s report considers Miss X’s amenity and finds the “overall harm to the site of [Miss X’s property] is limited.” In an email to a local councillor, the planning officer said:

“the revised plans would see the ridge height increased slightly but not to such a degree that there would be significant harm to neighbouring amenity.”

29. The Council took account of Miss X’s amenity in deciding to approve the application. It also considered the impact of the increased ridge height in the amended plans. Therefore, I find it likely the outcome would not be different had the Council conducted further consultation or publicity for the amended plans.

Agreed action

30. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should apologise to Miss X in writing.
31. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
32. The Council should take the following action to improve its service:
• Remind relevant staff of the need to consider whether amended plans should result in further consultation and to keep a record of the decision;
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of keeping accurate records or minutes of meetings; and
• Remind relevant staff of the objectives and requirements of the Statement of Community Involvement.
33. The Council should provide evidence it has taken this action within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman