Summary: Mrs P complained the Council failed to consider a planning application or take her objections into account. She says the Council failed to provide measurements or respond effectively to her complaint. The Council says it has completed all the processes correctly. We find no fault in the Council’s consideration of the planning application or Mrs P’s objection. We find fault with the Council for failing to upload the revised plans and in failing to distinguish between the planning enforcement and complaint process. However, this did not cause Mrs P a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mrs P complains the Council failed to:

• properly consider her objections to a neighbour’s planning application;
• provide the measurements of the neighbour’s extension on the planning portal; and
• adequately respond to her complaints.

2. Mrs P says this has caused her to suffer anxiety, distress and has affected her health. She wants the Council to revoke the planning permission and for it to recognise the impact on her 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)

How I considered this complaint

6. In considering this complaint we have:

• Contacted Mrs P and read the information presented with her complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its response;
• Shared this draft decision with Mrs P and the Council and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

The law, guidance, and policy

7. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission is required for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) or deemed to be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
8. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the Council’s local development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. It constitutes guidance in drawing up plans and is a material consideration in determining applications.
9. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
10. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

11. The Council introduced a supplementary guide to householders on best practice for residential design and extensions.

Council’s Complaints Policy

12. The Council had a two stage complaints handling policy. However, it does not treat objections to planning applications as complaints under this policy.
13. Rather, the Council considers complaints on how it handled planning applications under its complaints procedure. For example, a complaint that it failed to give the right publicity for an application.
14. Under the complaints policy the time scales are 10 days to respond under Stage One. If a Stage Two review is requested a senior manager will conduct this. The Council should respond within 10 working days however, for complex complaints a deadline for response is 20 working days.

What Happened

Case Officer’s Report and Objections

15. In July 2020 the Council received a planning application for a single storey extension from Mrs P’s neighbour, Mr X.
16. The Council received an objection to the application from Mrs P in August 2020. It listed this in the case officers report. The objection says the extension would cause:

• a loss of light to a habitable room;
• overshadowing; and
• visual intrusion and a lack of privacy;

17. The case officer’s report provided a detailed assessment setting out the material planning considerations, outlined the relevant applicable law, national and local planning policies. The report referred directly to Mrs P’s property and gave the case officer’s professional view which considered the objection received and impact on the neighbour’s amenities. However, the case officer considered that subject to conditions there would be no unacceptable impact on neighbours. The Council granted planning permission with conditions in October 2020.

Plans

18. Mrs P told the Council the plans uploaded to its website did not contain specific measurements and asked it to supply these on several occasions between August 2020 and January 2021.
19. The Council in its reply to Mrs P in May 2021 apologised to her for not making the revised drawing available on its planning portal. It said that this would have been helpful to have allayed Mrs P’s concerns and given her a better understanding of her neighbour’s plans. It noted it had attached relevant plans, however, not all of them had measurements on. The Council said the plans did contain a scale bar to allow the case officer to measure the extent of projection.
20. Mrs P remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and said that she felt the plans were amateur and should have contained more detail.

Complaint to the Council

21. Mrs P complained to the Council on many occasions between October 2020 and June 2021. She says that she did not receive any response to her emails until February 2021.
22. The Council registered Mrs P’s complaint in January 2021. In response to Mrs P’s continued concerns the Council also began an enforcement investigation, assigning her an enforcement reference number and referring her to a single point of contact. The enforcement investigation is ongoing.
23. I have seen evidence of the Council’s reply to Mrs P’s concerns in its correspondence of February 2021. The Council gave Mrs P a complaint reference number (which was different to the enforcement investigation number given earlier) and gave her another single point of contact for her complaint. It also replied to Mrs P’s concerns in May and June 2021 and shared details of its enforcement investigation. The Council says it conducted three site visits between May and December 2021.
24. Mrs P says she remained dissatisfied and wrote to the chief executive on two occasions in June 2021 expressing her concerns with the Council’s response so far. Mrs P says she did not receive a response.
25. The Council say it did not receive any further correspondence from Mrs P since mid-June 2021.
26. Mrs P contacted the Ombudsman in February 2021.

Analysis

27. My role is to consider whether the Council considered the planning application without fault, not to judge the merits of the planning application. If I find fault, I must consider what the Council should do to put right any injustice caused.
28. It is for the decision maker to decide what weight to give to the individual material planning considerations. I cannot impose my judgment over that of professional officers and it is clear they have considered the application against the relevant planning policies.

The case officer’s report

29. On examining the case officer’s report, it is clear they have considered the application in line with the local plan, Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and relevant law and policy. The case officer summarised the objection and set out their professional view of the application.
30. While we accept planning officers’ reports do not have to be perfect or cover every planning consideration, they should show the Council considered the core issues. It should set out the planning officer’s views even if only briefly. The report meets this criteria. It shows the Council had considered the plans and all relevant information and I am satisfied it made a decision without fault.

Plans

31. The Council’s website shows several plans. The Council recognised it had uploaded the revised plans but not made them visible to the public. This was fault. Mrs P has a reasonable expectation any revised plans would be visible. The Council has apologised.
32. Mrs P complains the plans did not record any measurements making it difficult for her to express her objections. The Council says it did not consult Mrs P on the revised plans because the revision addressed her concerns by reducing the size of the development. Councils must consider the planning application as presented. The plans were drawn to scale and so measurements could be taken from them. Therefore, the Council did not need to obtain plan measurements or share these with Mrs P. I do not consider that if Mrs P knew the measurements this would have changed her objection or the Council’s decision. I have identified fault in failing to upload the plans for which the Council has apologised. However, this fault did not cause Mrs P a significant injustice.

Complaint to the Council

33. Following Mrs P’s complaint, the Council started an enforcement investigation which is continuing. It answered the points raised in her complaints by sharing the findings of its enforcement investigation in its correspondence in May and June 2021. However, while giving her a separate complaint number in its correspondence of February 2021 the Council did not formally respond to the complaint under its complaints procedure. It did not distinguish between the enforcement investigation and complaints procedure in its correspondence. This led to Mrs P believing it had not addressed the concerns she had raised. This was fault. The Council did not formally respond to the complaint under its complaints procedure because it had begun an enforcement investigation, this caused some confusion but did not cause a significant injustice to Mrs P as the Council did reply and address the concerns raised.

Back to top

Final decision

34. The Council was at fault for failing to upload revised plans to its planning website and for failing to distinguish between its planning enforcement and the formal complaints procedure. However, this did not cause Mrs P a significant injustice. However, I do not find fault in the way the Council considered either Mrs P’s objections or the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman