Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged fault in the Council’s handling of planning applications for extensions at a nearby property.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of three householders. Ms X says there was fault in the Council’s handling of planning applications for extensions at a property close to the homes of the householders she represents. Ms X says:
• There was not enough information submitted with the planning application to enable the Council’s planning officer to make a full and thorough assessment of the proposal.
• There was no reference to inclusion of accommodation in the loft in the application form and drawings.
• The Council determined an application to vary or remove conditions of a planning permission as a full planning application.
• The Council did not refer one of the planning applications to its planning committee even though it received six objections and so passed the threshold for referral.
2. Ms X considers the Council demonstrated continuous flaws in the decision making process. She says planning officers did not fully understand the proposals which they assessed and the planning policies with which to assess the proposals. Ms X says this resulted in a significant flaw in the decision making process.
3. Ms X says the Council demonstrated poor administrative practice; failed to adhere to or properly consider statutory guidelines; did not consider statutory powers or duties; and failed to give an adequate service.

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 considered the details of the complaint as well as background information provided by Ms X and the Council. I discussed matters with Ms X by telephone. I sent my initial thoughts on the complaint to Ms X and the Council and invited the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council received a planning application which proposed single storey front, side and rear extensions at a property. It also proposed demolition of an existing conservatory and raising of the roof ridge to create loft space.
8. The Council sent notification letters to seven properties surrounding the application property including the householders Ms X represents. Two of the householders were unaware of the development although one of them received the notification letter.
9. The planning application was determined through delegated powers by a planning officer. The officer’s report listed the objections the Council had received from one objector. The objector said the proposed extension would project towards the ground floor window of a habitable room; the proposal would be an eyesore; the proposed materials are not in keeping with the character of the area; and the development would result in the loss of trees.
10. The planning officer’s report set out the relevant local plan and national policies that applied to the application. The case officer considered the impact of the proposal on residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.
11. The officer addressed the objection the Council received regarding the window of the habitable room. The planning officer said there would be a separation distance of 9.3 metres between the existing principal window of the habitable room and the proposed extension’s east elevation.
12. The officer said the proposed single storey extension would not project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from the midpoint of any principal windows of a habitable room in the adjacent property in accordance with policy HE5 of the Council’s supplementary plan documents.
13. The planning officer addressed the proposal’s impact on the amenities of the other two householders Ms X represents. With regard to one of the householders, the officer noted there was also a separation distance of 9.3 metres between the existing rear principal window of a habitable room and the proposal’s east elevation. With regard to the other, the officer said there would be a separation distance of 11 metres between the existing front ground floor principal window and the south elevation of a single story outbuilding within the application site. There would also be a separation distance of 13.65 metres to the gable elevation of the proposed front extension. The officer said these distances were in accordance with policy HE3 and HE4 of the Council’s supplementary planning documents.
14. The officer’s judgement was that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight and/or sunlight to the neighbouring properties or appear overbearing to them.
15. The Council granted planning permission.
16. The applicant subsequently submitted an application for a non- material amendment to change the size and shape of windows on the east elevation. The Council decided the change was material and so required submission of a new planning application or minor material amendment application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
17. The applicant then submitted an application described as demolition of existing conservatory, single storey front, side and rear extensions, raising of roof ridge height to create loft space, new bay window to side elevation, render to front, rear and side elevation (resubmission of …).
18. The planning officer’s report noted the main difference from the previous approved application was the alteration from render to brickwork on the main house and change of windows on its east elevation to four vertical windows.
19. The officer said the application also sought to acknowledge discrepancies on the original plan regarding distances to boundaries. The officer then set out distances to the boundaries from the proposed extension.
20. The officer said the distance from the extension at its nearest point where it meets the boundary of two of the householders Ms X represents was 210 millimetres. The distance from the outbuilding to the front elevation of the home of the other householder was measured as 10.4 metres.
21. The planning officer set out the objections the Council received. By this time, Ms X commented on behalf of the householders. The planning officer’s report summarised her comments and the Council’s response to them.
22. In terms of the proposal’s impact on neighbouring amenity, the planning officer said the proposed front extension would maintain a separation distance of 10.4 metres between the front facing principal window of a habitable room at the home of one of the householders and the gable end of the outbuilding. The gable end of the main building within the application site which faces the householder’s home would have a separation distance of 13.03 metres. The officer was satisfied the relationship was in accordance with the Council’s local plan policies.
23. In terms of the properties of the other two householders, the officer noted the previously approved high level windows on the eastern elevation had limited views directly to habitable rooms. However, the officer said the proposed changes to vertical windows meant local plan policy HE1 applied.
24. The officer said there would be a separation distance of approximately 12.1 metres between the proposed windows in the eastern elevation at ground floor level and the rear principal windows of a habitable room in the homes of the two householders. The officer noted the proposed vertical windows would be within close proximity to the side boundary shared with one of the houses but said the window would not project any closer to the property when compared to the previously approved windows.
25. The officer said views from the proposed windows would be mitigated by the boundary fence and neighbouring bushes/hedges. The officer said there would be no overlooking into the neighbour’s garden or ground floor windows. At first floor level, the officer proposed a condition requiring the windows to be obscured glazed.
26. The Council approved the application. But its decision notice imposed a time limit of three years on the application. This is the time limit usually set out for full planning applications.

Analysis

27. Our role is not to provide answers to each and every criticism a complainant may have about a council. Instead it is to consider allegations about what the authority has done wrong and whether the alleged fault has caused a significant injustice to the complainant.
28. I will now set out my findings on the points of complaint made by Ms X.

There was not enough information submitted with the planning application to enable the Council’s planning officer to make a full and thorough assessment of the proposal

29. Ms X says once a planning application has been validated provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act allows a planning officer to request further reasonable information from the applicant which the officer thinks necessary or to request evidence about a matter if the matter will be a material consideration in the determination of the application.
30. Ms X’s opinion is that there was insufficient information submitted as part of the first planning application for the planning officer to have made a full and thorough assessment of the proposal.
31. Ms X says to fully assess the proposal she expects to see a scale bar on the drawings or metric dimensions annotated on the drawings in relation to the height, length and width of the existing dwelling houses and dimensions of the same in relation to the proposed extensions. Further, Ms X says the Council did not make scaled drawings available to her clients contrary to a legal duty it has to ensure the public are able to understand plans submitted with planning applications.
32. Ms X queries why the planning officer did not seek clarification from the applicant on the purpose of a lift to the loft space. Ms X believes the planning officer should have made enquiries into the status of the loft space.
33. The Council says the submitted plans were to scale and its planning officer used a digital measuring tool to ascertain the relevant measurements.
34. It is evident in this case that the Council did not consider it required further information from the applicant. That Ms X considers further information was necessary does not now mean there was fault by the Council. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act that Ms X refers to make clear that it is for the local planning authority to determine whether it needs additional information from the applicant.
35. As to Ms X’s point that there is a legal duty on the Council to enable the public are able to understands plans, I am not aware of such a duty.

There was no reference to inclusion of accommodation in the loft in the application form and drawings

36. Ms X says the first planning application documents did not refer to the fact that the proposal included accommodation in the loft.
37. Ms X says the Council did not fully understand the application and so the correct local plan policies were not applied to the application. To illustrate this point, Ms X says the planning officer’s report refers to a separation distance of 9.3 metres between the existing rear principal window of a habitable room at two of the homes of her clients in accordance with policy HE4 of the SPD. But Ms X says policy HE4 relates specifically to principal windows of habitable rooms facing single storey gabled elevations whereas the only single storey element of the scheme is the outbuilding which faces habitable windows of the home of another property.
38. Ms X says the correct policies which should have been applied were policies HE1,HE2 and HE3 of the SPD as well as policies DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the Council’s development plan.
39. The Council says the development plan policies DES1, DES7 and DES8 were set out in officer report. Its response to Ms X’s claim that it misapplied policy HE4 of the SPD is nuanced. The Council says the proposal’s eastern elevation is single storey with a pitched roof which accommodates a loft space. It concedes it is not a two-storey development as depicted in the SPD.
40. While it refutes the suggestion that it misapplied guidance in the SPD, it says it is not unreasonable to have applied policy HE4 since the side elevation faced the rear elevation of houses that contained principal habitable room windows and it was assessing whether such development could have any unacceptable impact.
41. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body. So he is not able to substitute his judgement for that of the Council’s officers. Where there is a dispute about technical matters of a planning decision as there is here, it is for the courts to adjudicate on these matters and not the Ombudsman.
42. I am satisfied the Council assessed the application’s impact on the amenities of surrounding properties in good faith. I am also satisfied the planning officer reports in both applications presents reasoned justification for the judgements made by officers. If the reference to use of the SPD was incorrect and this affected the integrity of its decision then it is for Ms X to seek a judicial review of the Council’s decision.
43. As to reference to accommodation in the loft, I do not find the amenities of Ms X’s clients are affected by the alleged failure to describe the possible use of the loft for accommodation. They would only be affected if windows in the loft look unimpeded into their properties. That is not the case here. I do not find the issue of accommodation warrants further enquiry by the Ombudsman.

The Council determined an application to vary or remove conditions of a planning permission as a full planning application

44. I do not consider this issue warrants detailed analysis. This is because I do not find Ms X’s clients suffered an injustice because the Council may or may not have dealt with a section 73 application as a full application.

The Council did not refer one of the planning applications to its planning committee even though it received six objections and so passed the threshold for referral

45. The Council’s rules for a referral of a planning application to the planning committee require objections from six or more householders living in separate properties. In this case, it received six objections but two of the objections were from the same property. The application therefore did not meet the threshold for referral to the planning committee.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised here by Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman