Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly decide a planning application submitted by her neighbour. There was fault by the Council. It failed to follow basic planning procedures. We found the outcome was unlikely to have been different, but the Council should recognise the time and trouble Mrs X was put to in raising the matter.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains there were failings in the way the Council decided her neighbour’s planning application in 2019. She says the Council failed to advertise the application correctly, it did not consider an objection she sent and officers decided the application well before the statutory consultation period was over.
2. In 2020 the applicant submitted a non-material amendment application to amend the materials for the development. The Council failed to recognise that the applicant’s request for an amendment was based on revised plans that had not been approved.
3. Miss X says the way the Council mishandled the application was frustrating. She complained it exacerbated other problems caused by her neighbour. She also stated the proximity of the development to her boundary affected the use of her driveway. This may have been avoided if her objections had been considered.

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. 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

6. I spoke to Miss X and considered her complaint and the information she provided. I looked at the information available on the Council’s online planning file and its response to the complaint.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. In June 2019 Miss X’s neighbour submitted plans to demolish an existing garage and build a single-storey side and rear extension. The development is in a conservation area.
9. The law requires planning applications in a conservation area to be advertised in the local press and via a site notice. It sets a statutory requirement to provide 21 days for comments to be made.
10. The Council sent neighbour notification letters to some nearby properties on 26 July 2019 asking for comments. Miss X was notified by letter and submitted an objection on 5 August. She highlighted that their driveway and the neighbour’s drive were directly alongside each other. If her neighbours built forward onto their driveway, the proximity of the extension would make it impossible for her to open her car door in the space available. She noted her neighbour would also lose a parking space and the extension would result in the street looking overdeveloped.
11. The case officer’s report for the application takes account of the position of the property in a conservation area and the visual appearance of the proposals. The report noted there were no windows facing the neighbouring property and the height of the extension would not be oppressive. However, the report stated no objections had been raised. The case officer makes no reference to the parking issues Mrs X raised.
12. The Council stated the decision was sent to a senior officer to check. However, they were told there had been no objections. The other problems were not identified.
13. The Council approved the application and issued a decision notice on 6 August. The decision was issued only 11 days after the Council sent neighbour notification letters. Amongst other things the Council’s decision notice included a condition requiring the use of materials to match the existing property.
14. On 12 August the applicant submitted revised plans. The plans were to keep the existing garage and to remove the proposed extension to the rear. They showed the applicant now only wanted to gain permission for a single-storey side extension. These plans were put onto the existing file, but not acted upon. The permission was unchanged as the decision notice had already been issued.
15. In June 2020 Miss X’s neighbour applied to amend the materials he intended to use. However, the submitted plans were to amend the revised plans submitted after the original decision, not the ones the Council approved. The Council validated the application and began considering it, in error.
16. Mrs X complained in June 2020. She put to the Council her concerns about the publication procedures and that the decision was made before the consultation period ended. She also complained about her objection not being considered.
17. Mrs X told the Council that her neighbour and their builder had caused problems during construction. She told the Council she was having to take legal action against her neighbour to resolve this.
18. The Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint acknowledged serious errors in procedures. It stated no site notice was erected when the original application was being considered. Although the Council says it sent a press advertisement to a local newspaper on 8 August, an officer decided the application on 6 August, too early, and before the application had been advertised in the press. The Council told Mrs X that her objection to the application had not been considered by the officer who decided it. The Council also accepted that the non-material amendment application it began to consider was not valid, since it requested amendment to plans that were not approved.
19. The Council apologised to Miss X for the failings. It stated case officers had been reminded of the need to follow correct procedures and statutory guidelines. It stated it would also be updating its guidance for senior officers checking decisions. These actions were to prevent a re-occurrence of the problems identified.
20. The Council told the applicant that the development being carried out was unauthorised as no change to the plans had been agreed. It told him a fresh planning application would be required. It stated enforcement action would be considered if this was not forthcoming.
21. In August 2020 revised planning application was submitted. Mrs X was consulted and she submitted an objection explaining the impact that it would have to the use of their driveway. She also stated the application would no longer be able to access his garden to the rear which would mean storing bins at the front of his property. Mrs X also considered the work done so far showed this was overdevelopment.
22. The case officer’s report considered the revised planning application and took into account the points Mrs X made in her objection. The Council noted the concern about parking. However, it stated the applicant had no obligation to allow opening of car doors across the boundary. It did not consider this a reason for refusal. The Council considered there was sufficient room for storage of bins at the front of the property. The Council approved the revised application as a result.

Was there fault by the Council

23. There was clear fault by the Council when dealing with the first planning application by Mrs X’s neighbour. The Council failed to adhere to statutory requirements about consultation. It decided the application before the statutory time period for consultation responses and it failed to consider Mrs X’s objection despite having received it. Given the multiple failings it also appears that senior officers signing off the application did not have sufficient oversight of the application. This was poor and constitutes fault by the Council.
24. The Council also failed to acknowledge or respond to revised plans from the applicant. However, when the applicant began building, not in adherence with the approved plans, the Council did act to address the unauthorised development. It required a further planning application to be submitted. This is normal practice.
25. Because the plans were revised, the Council was able to consider the application afresh. Although I understand Mrs X is disappointed that the Council approved the development, I do not consider there was fault in the decision made on the second application. The Council considered the impact of the development and the comments received when reaching its decision. The decision was one it was entitled to make. It also seems more likely than not that the original application would still have been approved had the Council considered it correctly in 2019.
26. I recognise that Mrs X had concerns about the way her neighbour acted during construction. However, this would not constitute fault by the Council. These were civil issues to be resolved with her neighbour.
27. I have concluded that, while the errors made by the Council were basic errors of planning procedure, I do not consider that they led to the approval of planning permission that otherwise would have been refused. However, the issue has clearly put Mrs X to the time and trouble of challenging the Council’s decisions and raising a complaint. The Council should provide a remedy to recognise this.

Agreed action

28. To recognise the time and trouble Mrs X has been put to in pursuing her complaint and challenging the Council’s erroneous planning decision, it agreed to pay her £250 within four weeks of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

29. There was fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman