Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consult him regarding changes to his neighbour’s plans for an extension which will overshadow his home. There was fault by the Council, but this did not cause injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to consult him regarding revised plans by his neighbour. The extension that has been approved is larger and closer to his home. Mr X says there will be overshadowing and loss of privacy due to the new extension.

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. 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

4. I have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have considered the planning documents available on the Council’s planning website. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s neighbour applied to the Council for planning permission to build a part two storey, part single storey extension to his home. Mr X was consulted regarding his neighbour’s application, but did not object or comment on it because he considered it did not affect him significantly.
6. However, Mr X’s neighbour later sent revised plans to the Council. The single storey extension was moved to the side boundary with Mr X’s home and the two storey extension was also changed.
7. The Council approved the plan within two days of the revised application. The Council did not carry out any further consultation. The delegated officer’s report recommending approval of the plan did not recognise all the changes and referred to the original plan. The report stated the side of the extension was 1.2 m away from the boundary when it had now changed to meet the boundary. A senior planning officer agreed the recommendation and the Council granted planning approval.
8. Mr X complained when he realised the revised plan had been approved. He said that he had not been consulted on the new plans and the Council had not taken into account the significant changes. He said he should have had an opportunity to comment. Now the approved plan, if built, would affect him because it would restrict light and a window on the second storey would mean a loss of privacy.
9. The Council replied agreeing it had not consulted and that it should have done. Its Statement of Community Involvement says that if an applicant sought amendments, “The Council will consult all respondents again, and other consultees as appropriate, if the amendments are significant or would directly affect a neighbour.”
10. The Council explained there was a revocation procedure, which required the Council to consider if it was expedient to revoke or modify a planning approval.
11. The Council also accepted that its report had not taken account of the changes to the plan. The Council apologised to Mr X that it had not followed procedures correctly. It said it would ensure that its learning from the complaint would be shared with the planning officer and their manager to prevent recurrences.
12. The Council said it had now considered the revised plan and whether, if it had properly assessed it, it would have approved the plan. The Council’s view was that it would still have approved the plan. But it acknowledged this could not take account of objections neighbours might have made if they had been consulted.
13. In response to our enquiries the Council gave further information about its retrospective consideration. The Council said that the approved plan would have an impact on Mr X’s amenity, as the original plan did. The differences were that the two storey element had been moved forward and also closer to the boundary with Mr X’s property. However, the new plan had a hipped roof rather than a gable roof which would reduce overshadowing over Mr X’s garden. The window at first floor level to the side elevation, which would have overlooked Mr X’s garden had been removed. The Council considered the impact on outlook from Mr X’s rear windows. It found that the majority of Mr X’s rear facing windows would not look directly onto the extension and the outlook was potentially improved. It also said the overall scale of the extensions were more appropriate to the host house. In conclusion, the Council considered that if it had assessed the revised plans correctly it would not have come to a different decision and would have approved the plan.

Analysis

14. There was fault by the Council as it accepts that it should have consulted Mr X. it also failed to consider the significant changes to the plan and the impact on Mr X before it approved it.
15. However, I do not consider that if there had been no fault by the Council, the outcome would have been different. It appears that if the Council had consulted Mr X and other residents and Mr X raised concerns regarding overshadowing and overlooking, the Council would likely still have approved the revised plan.
16. The Council has explained how it retrospectively assessed the impact on Mr X’s home. In particular it assessed overlooking, overshadowing, dominance and loss of privacy. But it did not consider the revised plan would affect the amenity of Mr X to such an extent that it would have refused the application. I do not find there is fault in its consideration, as it has referred to relevant material planning considerations.
17. The Council has apologised to Mr X for its failure to consult him and its failure to recognise and assess the differences in the plan. I consider this is an appropriate remedy and I have not recommended any further remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have not found fault but no injustice. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman