Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a neighbouring house. We find fault because the Council delayed in registering some consultation responses. Mrs Y’s response was processed and considered, but her neighbour’s response was not. The planning report also wrongly referred to a nearby development which is subject to enforcement action. However, we find the fault caused no injustice because the Council took account of all relevant and material planning considerations. On balance we find it was unlikely to have reached a different decision in the absence of fault. There is no evidence of fault in the other matters complained about.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs Y, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a nearby house. In particular, she says the Council:
1. failed to capture and then consider all consultation responses before making its decision to approve the application.
2. did not properly scrutinise or verify information submitted by the planning applicant.
3. made omissions and errors in the officer report, for example giving weight to a nearby development which is now subject to a demolition notice; and
4. acted inconsistently when assessing the applicant’s second submission, contradicting all the reasons it previously cited when refusing the first application.
2. Mrs Y says that fault in the Council’s actions have caused her distress and reduced her residential amenity.

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’. 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)
4. 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)
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. During my investigation I considered the information submitted by Mrs Y and gave her the opportunity to discuss her complaint with me by telephone.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I also consulted the online planning documents for the planning permission complained about.
8. I issued a draft decision and invited comments from Mrs Y and the Council. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Complaint a) failure to capture and consider all consultation responses

9. The Council received an application seeking permission for a six-metre rear extension at a property close to Mrs Y’s home, which I will refer to as ‘application one’. The Council refused application one because of its excessive depth and unneighbourly appearance. The applicant submitted a revised application, which I will call ‘application two’, seeking permission for a five-metre rear extension. The Council granted permission in June 2020.
10. Mrs Y responded to the consultation for application two on 13 May 2020. Her response raised the following concerns:
• The previous reasons for refusal have not been addressed in application two
• The area is currently under consideration for ‘conservation area’ status
• The proposal is not in the spirit of the Council’s Local Plan
• No other extensions on the estate have exceeded permitted development
• The applicant’s Design and Access Statement (DAS) contains errors
• The proposal is intrusive, unneighbourly and impacts on privacy
• Cooking extraction will cause noise and odour nuisance
11. Mrs Y’s neighbour, Mr X, says he also submitted comments around the same time and before the deadline, which was 16 May 2020.
12. I am not investigating a complaint from Mr X. However, his objection is relevant because Mrs Y claims injustice arising from the Council’s alleged failure to consider Mr X’s comments. She says the planning outcome may have been different, therefore having a direct impact on her residential amenity.
13. Mr X contacted the Council in late May to query why his objection did not appear on the website. The Council said it received an objection from his address on 13 May. Mr X confirmed that was from his son, and that he had also responded separately and in his own right. The Council asked Mr X to forward his objections again and provided an email address. It explained there was delay in processing responses and adding them to the website, but assured Mr X that all comments would be passed to the planning officer.
14. Mr X emailed the Council on 27 May with an objection which covered the following key points:
1. Anomalies in the plans and DAS
2. Loss of light, outlook and increased enclosure
3. Future maintenance
4. Protection for ‘residential precinct’ status
5. Size and depth of extension
6. Lack of air extraction from kitchen
7. Failure to meet policy requirements
15. An email on 4 June shows the Council forwarded Mr X’s comments to the planning officer responsible for making the decision.
16. Despite the queries raised by Mr X, and the assurances given by the Council, Mrs Y complains that the Council’s website did not show Mr X’s full objections. Instead, it displayed a short email, rather than the full list of objections which Mr X says he submitted before the published deadline.
17. I have read the planning officer’s report to decide whether they had regard to all material planning matters before it made a decision. The report addressed the concerns covered in Mr X’s points 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. This is because these points were also raised by Mrs Y. There is no reference to points 3, 4 and 7.
18. Objection three is not a material planning consideration because future maintenance of the extension, and any issues involving the ‘party wall’, are matters for the affected neighbours to pursue privately with the applicant. This is not a matter for the Council.
19. The report references the status of the area as a ‘constraint’ but does not go into any further detail about objection four. In response to a complaint raised by Mr X, the Council explained its view that the officer gave sufficient regard to the character of the area and referred to other nearby extensions. I agree the report addressed this wider point.
20. Finally, there is no specific reference to Mr X’s objection seven regarding policy requirements. However, I am satisfied the report refers to the relevant policy considerations and explains why, in the officer’s view, the proposal is acceptable despite some areas of non-compliance with planning policy or guidance.
21. With this in mind, and based on the evidence seen, I am not persuaded on balance that the officer’s view would have been different had they considered the additional points covered in Mr X’s objections before making its determination.
22. With that said, the Council acknowledges there was delay in processing consultation responses due to the high volume of correspondence received at the time. The Council has also since explained that around this time its teams were making the transition to home-based working following the national COVID-19 lockdown. It says this also had an adverse impact on timescales.
23. Since then, the Council confirms it has taken steps to streamline its processes, develop staff training and improve its systems to ensure better processing times.
24. Although I accept the Council’s mitigation for the delay, I still find fault with the failure to promptly register the planning representations in this case. This is because Mr X’s objection of 27 May was received after the deadline, but before determination of the planning application, so in theory the Council could and should have considered it as part of its planning assessment.
25. For the reasons already explained above, I am satisfied this fault caused no injustice to Mrs Y because the material points raised were already included in the planning report. Any other points Mr X raised were not material planning considerations and it is unlikely they would have any bearing on the planning decision.

Complaint b) failure to properly scrutinise information from the applicant

26. Mrs Y complains about inaccurate information included in the applicant’s ‘Design and Access Statement’ (DAS). She says the Council should have scrutinised and verified the information before determining the application. In particular, Mrs Y says:
• The DAS wrongly states that properties neighbouring the proposal site are all semi-detached
• Mrs Y’s extension is not the closest in proximity
• The applicant refers to Mrs Y’s extension, but context is not given to the circumstances, i.e., that her house is detached, and her extension is permitted development
• The DAS does not show a complete site plan.
27. The Council cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information submitted by planning applicants. However, it should take steps to verify information if it becomes aware that there may be inaccuracies. Mrs Y raised concerns about the DAS and feels these were ignored by the Council.
28. I have considered this part of Mrs Y’s complaint. It is not my role to say whether the DAS was correct. The Council has explained the DAS offers only a general summary of the proposal, and the officer’s decision is based on the plans submitted.
29. I am satisfied the officer’s report provides an accurate overview of the character of the area, and although it does not specifically mention that Mrs Y’s house is detached, I am not persuaded this would have any bearing on the decision. The site plan considered by the officer shows Mrs Y’s property to be detached.

Complaint c) errors in the planning officer’s report

30. The Council acknowledges fault in this part of Mrs Y’s complaint. This is because the planning officer referred to a house, which I will refer to as the ‘nearby development’, when assessing the merits of the proposal. The nearby development is subject to ongoing enforcement action. The Council says the officer should have checked the status of the development before referring to it.
31. I have considered whether, in my view, the officer’s reference to the nearby development meant the proposal was wrongly approved therefore causing injustice to Mrs Y. The relevant part of the report says, "a vast majority of the properties alongside [road name] have existing rear extensions including the neighbouring property at [address removed] with a rear extension of a depth greater than the proposal. In addition the adjacent property at [nearby development] have an existing larger depth rear extension. The proposed extension would have a similar height to the existing rear extensions of the attached neighbouring properties [addresses removed] … the new rear extension would be in keeping with the surroundings in terms of size and design…"
32. I am satisfied the officer’s report does not solely rely on the nearby development when giving their justification for approval. Instead, the officer also references other extensions built on the road, including the one on Mrs Y’s house. On balance, and based on the information seen, I find this fault caused no injustice.

Complaint d) contradictions in assessment of the second application

33. The Council refused application one because, “…of its excessive depth and position close to the boundaries of the site… would be an intrusive and unneighbourly addition, out of scale and character with this and surrounding dwellings, as well as having a serious and adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties, causing loss of light and outlook…”
34. The report for application two noted, “… hence although the proposed structure would have a greater depth and a height than is suggested in the Housing Design SPD 2019, the near rear extension would be in keeping with the surrounding in terms of size and design… the proposed rear extension would be in line with the existing rear extension of the property at [address removed]”
35. Mrs Y says the Council references her property as justification for approval because she has an extension which is deeper than the one complained about. But Mrs Y says her house is detached and so none of the exterior walls run along the neighbouring boundaries, therefore she says the two are not comparable.
36. Based on the information seen, I do not uphold this part of Mrs Y’s complaint. There is a material difference between application one and two. In the Council’s opinion, the changes to application two overcame the previous reasons for refusal. I consider the report explains how the Council came to this view. It was entitled to reach this decision, and in the absence of procedural fault on this point, I have no grounds to challenge the merits of the decision made.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation and made a final decision of fault causing no injustice for the reasons explained in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman