Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled a planning application for a glazed door as it approved the plan before the end of the consultation period. This did not cause any significant injustice to Mr X, so no remedy is necessary.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council:
• Granted planning permission before the end of the public consultation period.
• Failed to take account of his objections when deciding the application.
• Did not consider of the impact of the development on the amenity of his property.
2. Mr X says he lost his opportunity to object to the application and the development has resulted in a loss of privacy to his property.

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. As part of my investigation I:
• Considered the complaint and information provided by Mr X.
• Considered the planning documents.
• Made enquiries to the Council and considered the information received in response.
• Sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered the responses received.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X lives in a listed building. He has access to a lightwell via a door which opens onto the lightwell. His neighbour had a window which opened out onto the lightwell.
8. In July 2018 Mr X’s neighbour removed the window opening onto the lightwell and replaced this with a UVPC double glazed door without getting planning permission. The Council opened an enforcement case after Mr X reported this and told the neighbour to remove the door as they did not have planning permission or listed building consent.
9. Mr X’s neighbour applied for listed building consent for the double glazed UVPC door. The Council refused this as it considered the UVPC double glazed door was harmful to the historic interest of the listed building. In December 2018 the Council served Mr X’s neighbour with a listed building enforcement notice. The notice required Mr X’s neighbour to remove the UPVC door and to reinstate the single glazed timber frame window that was there before the unauthorised works. The notice also required Mr X’s neighbour to reinstate the brickwork.
10. At the end of December 2018, Mr X’s neighbour applied for listed building consent to replace their window onto the lightwell with a glazed door. Mr X objected to this application. The Council granted listed building consent in March 2019.
11. In April 2019, Mr X’s neighbours applied for planning permission to replace their window onto the lightwell with a glazed door. The Council approved the planning application in May 2019 however this was before the consultation period had ended. In relation to looking at the impact on Mr X’s property, the case officer’s report only said the proposal would not result in material harm to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
12. Mr X contacted the Council with his objections to the plans raising concerns about security as his neighbour had access to the lightwell and the impact this had on his privacy. On 30 May 2019 the Council responded to Mr X. It said the case officer decided the planning application before the end of the consultation period due to an administrative error but Mr X’s objections would not have affected the outcome of the planning application. The Council said it considered the impact of living conditions on neighbouring properties. The Council also said the application related to the replacement of a glazed window with a glazed door and not the use of the lightwell space. Any concerns about the use of the lightwell would be a civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour and would not be considered when looking at the merits of a planning application. The Council said as there was an existing opening in the form of a window it decided there would not be a loss of privacy over and above the current situation. In relation to Mr X’s concerns about security to his flat the Council said it did not consider there were any additional security concerns as there was already a window in this opening which opened out onto the lightwell.
13. Mr X also contacted his ward Councillor about the application to ask the Council to consider it at committee. The ward Councillor told Mr X he could not do this due to the time passed and did not think the committee would have made a different decision to the case officer.
14. In August 2019 Mr X contacted the Council to report the glass area in the door his neighbour installed is bigger than that shown in the plans. The Council opened a planning enforcement case but decided the increase in glazing on the door was not a material change to the approved planning application. The Council said its reasoning for this was the increase in glazing was lower to the ground, roughly at knee height, and would not result in any greater degree of overlooking.

Mr X’s complaint

15. Mr X complained to the Council in September 2019 about its decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application to install a glazed door onto the lightwell in place of a window. Mr X said the case officer’s report did not address his concerns and the Council approved the application before the consultation period.
16. The Council provided its stage one response in October 2019. The Council said it was at fault for issuing a decision before the consultation period ended and apologised to Mr X. The case officer considered the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties. The Council said changing the opening from a window to a glazed door would not significantly change the view. But installing a door does change access to the lightwell from Mr X’s neighbours however, Mr X has a door to the lightwell which is comparable to his access. The Council confirmed Mr X’s neighbour secured listed building consent before planning permission for the door.
17. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two in July 2019. He did not believe the Council considered the impact of the development on his property as he could not send formal objections. Mr X said previously his neighbours could not access the lightwell but now they can see into his living space from the lightwell. He said the building was designed with privacy of both flats in mind which is why his neighbour did not have access to the lightwell.
18. In September 2019 the Council provided its stage two response:
• The Council apologised for granting planning permission before the consultation period ended and before Mr X could send his objections.
• The Council said there was enough in the case officer’s report to show the case officer considered whether there would be some effect from the proposed door which amounted to harm. The Council admitted the report was very brief as it does not describe why the proposal would not result in harm to Mr X’s amenity. The Council said the officer considered the listed building consent which contained Mr X’s objections as there is a footnote referencing this in the report.
• In planning terms the Council considered there was not much difference between looking through a window or a glazed door as the view and angles of the view were no different. The Council said the key change was the glazed door gives Mr X’s neighbour access to the lightwell. However, the right to access the lightwell is a matter for the neighbours to resolve and not a reason in town planning terms to refuse an application.
• The Council said after looking at the case it did not consider Mr X’s objections would have made any difference to the result of the planning application.
19. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage three. Mr X said the change from window to glazed door has caused serious impact to his privacy as the neighbours can see into his property from the lightwell. Mr X said he cannot see into his neighbour’s property from the lightwell and the building was designed with this in mind. He is not convinced the case officer considered the listed building application with his objections recorded.
20. The Council responded to Mr X at stage three. The Council again accepted it should not have decided the planning application before the consultation period but did not believe the outcome would have been different if Mr X had submitted objections.

Response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries

21. In response to my enquiries the Council recognised deciding the application before the consultation period was wrong. It explained this was due to an individual error by someone accidentally deleting the decision date field on its information management system. This allowed the case officer to send the decision before the consultation period ended.
22. The Council explained it has put in place a mechanism within its information management system which means if someone tries to issue a decision when the decision date field is blank they will be prevented from doing so.

Analysis

23. The Council was at fault for deciding the application before the public consultation period ended. This meant Mr X could not send his written objections to the planning application before the Council approved it. The purpose of the consultation period is to give those affected the opportunity to comment on a planning application.
24. The Council says it considered the impact of the proposal on Mr X’s property, but the case officer’s report could have gone into more detail about this. The case officer’s report does consider the relevant planning policies about views, living conditions and character however, is very brief when describing the impact of the development on neighbouring properties. This is fault.
25. As I have found the Council at fault for the way it handled the planning application I must consider whether this caused injustice to Mr X. I recognise approving the application before the consultation period ended meant Mr X could not object, however the obvious injustice is whether Mr X’s objections would have changed the decision to grant planning permission.
26. Since approving the planning application the Council has addressed Mr X’s objections by writing to him in May 2019 and through its complaints procedure. It has explained why in its view, citing the differences in views between the window and door, Mr X’s objections would not have affected the result of the planning application. I am not of the view the outcome of the planning application would have been different had Mr X submitted his objections at the time and had these been recorded in the case officer’s report.
27. On balance I do not consider the Council’s failure to approve the planning application before the consultation period ended to have caused Mr X significant injustice. I am also satisfied the Council has taken appropriate steps to address this fault and prevent future applications from being approved before the consultation period ends.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation and found there was fault by the Council in its handling of the planning application. However this has not caused Mr X significant injustice, so no remedy is recommended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman