Summary: Mr X complained the Council approved a planning application which showed the incorrect position of his property in relation to the development site and failed to notify him of this inaccuracy. The Council properly considered the proposal and it was not misled. It visited the site and correctly reported the position of the proposal in respect of Mr X’s property and the impact on his amenity. There is no fault in how the Council considered this planning application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council approved a planning application which showed the incorrect position of his property in relation to the development site and failed to notify him of this inaccuracy.
2. Mr X says he was misled and so did not make objections and his property is now overlooked.

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. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a rear extension. The Council notified Mr X of the application and invited his comments. Mr X’s neighbour had already spoken to him about the proposal and showed him the plans. Mr X says that he also viewed the plans online.
7. Mr X says the plans showed the neighbouring extension would be built in line with his existing extension. Mr X says he knew his extension was four metres deep and so he felt there was no issue and did not submit any objections.
8. The Council’s planning officer visited the site and took photographs. I have seen these photograph’s which clearly show the rear of the applicant’s house as well as its relationship with the neighbouring properties. The case officer then produced a delegated decision report planning permission.
9. The delegated decision report included details of the proposal, the planning history of the site, relevant policies and guidance, details of consultation responses and an appraisal of the main planning issues.
10. The report described the rear extension and noted there would be an additional glazed central section. The report said the rear extension would exceed guidance in terms of both height and depth but that both neighbouring properties already benefit from rear extensions and the central section would be set back approximately 4.4 metres from Mr X’s boundary. It said it was not considered that this would significantly impact on Mr X’s amenity. It said the principal windows of the proposed extension would face the front and rear gardens of the application site and would not result in any additional overlooking or loss of privacy that that already existing.
11. This report was considered by senior officers, in line with the Council’s scheme of delegation, who granted planning permission.
12. A few months later, Mr X found out the neighbour’s extension would not be built in line with his existing extension but that a central section would project out a further metre. Mr X complained to the Council saying the plans were inaccurate and that if he had known the true situation he would have made objections. Mr X said the neighbouring extension will impact on his privacy. He said the Council should take action to ensure the protruding section of the neighbouring extension is removed.
13. The Council replied saying the neighbour’s plans were drawn to scale and show a part four metre, part five metre rear single storey extension. It said the submitted plans also show an outline of Mr X’s property with a hatching along the outlines. The Council says architects often draw in this way to indicate they haven’t surveyed the neighbouring property. The Council said it would not be able to refuse to register a planning application on the basis that a neighbouring property had not been surveyed.
14. The Council said it did not request the neighbour to resubmit amended plans as it did not consider this was necessary. It said with some rear extensions it would need to have accurate plotting of neighbouring windows in order to correctly assess the impact of the proposed extension. However, this was not necessary because Mr X’s property already had a four metre rear extension.
15. The Council further explained the policy and guidance stated that four metre deep single storey extensions were normally allowed on detached properties. It said therefore it had to assess whether it should approve or refuse the additional central section which was five metres deep. It said similar extensions had been approved and as the central section was away from the neighbouring boundaries, it could not sustain an argument that it was harmful.
16. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns that the plans were deliberately misleading because of the way in which his extension was drawn on the plans saying it was not assessing Mr X’s extension. It was satisfied the plans clearly showed a proposal for a part four, part five metre extension. It said it was unfortunate Mr X misread the plans but there was no fault in how the Council handled the application.
17. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

18. Mr X’s complaint relates to the submitted plans for a neighbour’s extension. Mr X says his property was shown on the plans with the rear of his property in line with the proposed extension. He says this is incorrect and misleading as there is a section of the proposal that will protrude a further metre past the rear of his property. This section of the neighbouring extension will be glazed and so Mr X considers his privacy will be affected as the neighbours will have a view across the back of his property which has an outdoor patio area.
19. On the basis of the information I have considered, it is clear Mr X was misled by the plans. He did look at the plans but was not aware there would be a section of the neighbour’s extension which was forward of his existing extension. As a result Mr X did not submit objections to the application.
20. I am satisfied the Council was fully aware of the nature of the proposal and the relationship with Mr X’s property. The delegated decision report clearly sets out the details of the proposed extension and notes there is a central glazed section which is five metres in depth. The delegated report comments on this and the impact on Mr X’s property. The case officer visited the site before compiling this report and was able to view the situation and the relationship with the neighbouring properties.
21. The plans for the proposed extension were drawn to scale and when measured showed there was a five metre section. While I can understand why Mr X relied on the position of his property shown on the plan and that this was not accurate, I cannot say this was as a result of any action by the Council. It was the neighbour’s architect that provided those plans.
22. The Council’s analysis makes it clear that it knew the proposed rear extension was, in part, five metres deep. The Council’s consideration of the application and the impact on the neighbouring properties was based on accurate information and I find no fault in the process leading to its decision to approve the application.
23. Mr X considers the Council should have told him about the inaccuracy in the plans and/or required the submission of accurate plans before determining the application. The information provided makes it clear the Council was not in any way misled about the proposal or the position of Mr X’s property. It could not know that Mr X was misled as it had no contact with him before it approved the application. As the Council was able to determine the application on the basis of the information submitted, there was no reason to require amended plans. I find no fault in the Council’s actions on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman