Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to notify her of her neighbour’s planning application and for ignoring the impact of the development on her amenity. The Council has already accepted fault in its handling of this case and has already offered Mrs X an appropriate remedy. There was unaddressed fault in the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s complaints, which has caused avoidable delay and distress. The Council agrees to apologise and make a further payment to Mrs X for this. It will also review its procedures and issue a reminder to relevant staff.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mrs X, complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application and her concerns about this. Mrs X says the Council has ignored the impact of her neighbour’s development on her and her husband as it failed to notify them in good time to submit any objections to the planning application. Mrs X feels she has been treated unfairly by the Council when she tried to raise her concerns and complaints about her neighbour’s development, which she feels the Council ignored until her MP became involved. Mrs X says this has caused her significant stress and worry, which has impacted on her health. She and her husband are concerned about the impact of their neighbour’s extension on the light coming into their property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
6. 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

7. I have spoken to Mrs X and considered the information she has provided in support of her concerns.
8. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
9. I have considered the rules around planning set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
10. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Guidance on planning

11. Most development needs planning permission from the local council. Councils should approve planning applications that comply with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
12. Material planning considerations include things like:

• the impact on neighbouring amenity;
• loss of sunlight;
• overshadowing/loss of outlook to the detriment of residential amenity (though not loss of view as such);
• overlooking and loss of privacy;
• layout and density of building design, visual appearance and finishing materials.

13. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development although in all cases the application must be published on the council’s website. In this case, the requirement was also for a site notice or neighbour notification (minor development).
14. Permitted development rights allow the improvement or extension of homes without the need to apply for planning permission, where that would be out of proportion with the impact of the works carried out. Single-storey rear extensions cannot extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by more than four metres if a detached house: or more than three metres for any other house. Single-storey extensions cannot exceed four metres in height.

What happened

Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application

15. Mrs X lives in a semi-detached property. In early June 2020, her neighbour submitted a planning application to the Council to replace an existing conservatory with a single-storey rear extension.
16. The Council had requested comments on this planning application from the Town Council as is its standard practice in these cases. The Town Council submitted its response via an online system in early July 2020. The Town Council stated it had no objections to the proposed development.
17. The Planning Officer considering the neighbour’s application finalised their assessment and report in July 2020. The report contained of material planning considerations including the design, layout and whether the proposed development would impact on highway safety. The Planning Officer concluded the proposed extension was not a great deal larger than the existing conservatory and the construction materials being used were in keeping with the existing property. The proposed extension would be 4 metres in length and 5.7 metres in width – 1.85 metres longer and 0.3 metres wider than the existing conservatory.
18. The Planning Officer made specific comments on the impact of the proposed development on the neighbouring properties, which included Mrs X’s house. The Planning Officer considered the proposal would not cause significant adverse overlooking or overshadowing impact on the neighbouring properties. The Planning Officer decided to approve the planning application and granted planning permission on 22 July 2020. The decision was published on the Council’s website the same day.

Mrs X’s complaints to the Council

19. Mrs X’s neighbour informed her in early November 2020 they had planning permission to replace their conservatory with a single-storey rear extension. Mrs X called the Council and was told notification letters had been sent out to affected neighbours at the time of the application. Mrs X checked and found none of her neighbours received notification of the planning application in June 2020.
20. Mrs X contacted her local Councillor about the issue, she was concerned she and her other neighbours had missed the chance to object to the planning application before the Council granted permission. Mrs X told the Councillor she had been unsuccessful in making her complaint to the Council about this.
21. The Council sent Mrs X a complaint form following a referral from her Councillor. The Council received Mrs X’s complaint by post on 13 November 2020. Mrs X sought help from her MP because she had not received a response from the Council by the end of November. On 26 November 2020, the MP wrote to the Council to chase up its response.
22. The Council emailed its stage one complaint response to Mrs X on 10 December 2020. It explained it had omitted to print and post the notification letters to neighbours in this case. The Council said the oversight had occurred because of changes in working arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council said it had still considered the impact of the planning application on neighbour amenity in the absence of any neighbour comments. The Council also explained that Mrs X’s objections expressed in her stage one complaint would not have altered the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s extension.
23. The Council apologised and offered a payment £100 for the distress caused to Mrs X and that she had missed the opportunity to comment on the application or make an appeal against the decision.
24. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and asked the Council to consider her complaint under stage two of its procedure the following day. On 13 January 2021, Mrs X contacted the Council to chase its response to her stage two complaint. Mrs X’s MP then wrote to the Council on 25 January 2021 to request an update on the stage two complaint response.
25. Mrs X asked her MP for an update on 19 February 2021. The MP replied on 22 February 2021 to advise Mrs X they had asked the Council for an update. The Council emailed Mrs X’s MP on 24 February 2021 to explain it did not intend to respond to Mrs X’s further complaint. It explained that it had nothing further to add to the stage one complaint response it sent to Mrs X and that the outcome of the planning application could not be changed. The Council suggested Mrs X might find it helpful to refer her complaint to us if she remained dissatisfied.
26. Mrs X brought her complaint to us shortly afterwards.

Was there fault causing injustice?

27. Mrs X’s concerns centre on the imposing nature of her neighbour’s proposed extension. Mrs X feels this unreasonably encroaches on her property and impacts significantly on the light into the rear of her home. The Council was obliged to consider the impact on neighbour amenity, including overlooking and overshadowing, as material planning considerations. The Council did this in the case of Mrs X’s neighbour even though it had not received any objections or comments. I agree with the Council’s view that its decision was unlikely to have changed even if it had seen Mrs X’s objections beforehand.
28. The Council has already accepted it was at fault by failing to send neighbour notifications in this case. The Council has apologised for this oversight and has offered Mrs X a financial remedy for the distress caused. In addition, the Council has taken action to audit other planning cases and has confirmed no other applications were similarly affected. The Council has put additional checking in place to prevent recurrence of this type of error. It has also reinstated site notices for all planning applications.
29. I consider the Council has taken the action we would have recommended to remedy the injustice cause by the fault it has identified in respect of the planning process.
30. However, there was fault in the Council’s complaint handling in this case, which it has not addressed.
31. The Council’s complaint procedure says it will respond to stage one complaints in 10 working days or will notify complainants if the response will take longer. The procedure says the Council will take 20 working days to respond to stage two complaints.
32. In Mrs X’s case, the Council took 20 working days to respond to her stage one complaint. This was only after Mrs X asked her MP to get involved. Worryingly, the Council took even longer; 52 working days, to notify Mrs X’s MP that it did not intend to provide a stage two complaint response. This was fault.
33. Mrs X experienced avoidable delay at both stages of the complaint procedure. She had to repeatedly chase the Council for responses, which it did not provide and ultimately had to involve her MP just to get the Council to respond. Mrs X was put to avoidable time and trouble just to progress through the Council’s complaints process, which should be seamless and easy to use. My recommendations below seek to address this element of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of the final decision, the Council agrees to:

• apologise to Mrs X for the way it handled her complaints; and,
• make a payment of £100 to Mrs X for avoidable distress, time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling (in addition to the £100 the Council has already offered for failing to send neighbour notifications).

35. Within three months of the final decision, the Council will:

• review its complaint procedure to ensure this includes a requirement to acknowledge receipt of complaints at both stages within a set timescale (usually 5 working days); and,
• remind relevant staff that written explanation must be given to complainants where the Council has decided not to accept or respond to an escalated complaint. This explanation should include signposting to the appropriate Ombudsman service.

36. The Council should provide us with evidence to show it has completed the above recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation and found fault with the Council. The fault has caused Mrs X injustice and it has agreed to take additional action to remedy the outstanding injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman