Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission to Mr B’s neighbour for a first-floor balcony.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to erect a first-floor balcony. In particular, he complains that the Council did not carry out a site visit and did not refer the application to the Council’s Planning Committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
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:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Overview

5. Mr B’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a two-storey rear extension, with a first-floor balcony.
6. Mr B submitted representations to the Council. He did not object to the extension but he considered the balcony would have an unacceptable impact on the privacy of his rear garden. He said the balcony was contrary to the Council’s policies and supplementary planning guidance which was designed to protect rear gardens from being overlooked.
7. Two other neighbours and a local Councillor also submitted representations objecting to the balcony.
8. The Council negotiated with the applicant to reduce the size of the balcony and add privacy screens. Council officers then approved the application.
9. Mr B considers officers should have visited the site to properly understand the impact of the balcony, and the application should have been determined by the Council’s Planning Committee.

Analysis

10. When we investigate a complaint about a planning decision, we consider whether there has been any administrative fault in the way the application has been decided which may call into question the decision. We do not consider the application afresh on its merits; we look only at the process followed by the council when it reached the decision.
11. When a council considers a planning application, it should consider the impact it will have on neighbouring properties. But it is not the case that councils must refuse planning permission for development that will have an adverse impact on other properties. Councils must assess the degree of impact and decide if it is so great that it should refuse the application. This is a judgement the council makes taking into account all the relevant information. Provided the council carries out the assessment properly then we cannot question the decision it has made. I have considered how the Council reached its decision in this case.

Site visit

12. Council officers and planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using ariel photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.
13. Due to Covid-19, the Council issued new guidance to its officers on carrying out site visits. It said that site visits should be avoided if possible and applicants should be asked to provide photographs or videos to enable desk-based assessments to be carried out.
14. The applicant submitted plans of the proposal and photographs taken from various viewpoints. Mr B also submitted several photographs. The Council says that after considering this information alongside Google maps and Google Earth, the Case Officer and Area Manager decided that a site visit was not necessary.
15. I have considered the information available to officers when they were assessing the proposal. I am satisfied that the Council had sufficient information to enable it to make a sound judgement on the impact of the proposal, without carrying out a site visit. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Planning policy

16. Guideline 6 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance states that extensions should protect and maintain minimum levels of privacy. It states, “It is important to maintain the privacy of rear garden areas particularly near the house. On traditional estates this area is nearly as private as the internal space. Therefore new windows or rear balconies giving wide views over neighbouring gardens or creating other privacy problems will not be permitted.”
17. Mr B considers the proposal fails to maintain a minimum level of privacy because it will provide wide views over his rear garden and will overlook the area nearest his house.
18. The Council considered the opaque privacy screens at each end of the balcony would act as blinkers, reducing the field of vision of anyone using the balcony. The report on the proposal explains the officer’s view that the balcony would result in some loss of privacy, but that the privacy screens, in combination with Mr B’s rear extension adjacent to the boundary, and his higher ground level, would adequately maintain the privacy of the part of his garden nearest to the house. I appreciate that Mr B disagrees with the Council’s view here, but I am satisfied that it was reached after proper consideration.
19. The Council considered the level of harm would not be so significant as to be unreasonable or unacceptable and would maintain a minimum level of privacy as advised by the Supplementary Planning Guidance. I have found no evidence of fault in the way this decision was reached.

Delegated decision

20. The Council’s constitution sets out when planning decisions should be made by the Planning Committee, and when they can be delegated to the Council’s officers. The reasons for referring a planning decision to Committee include where:
• the decision would represent a significant departure from policy;
• the Council’s policy position is unclear or difficult to determine;
• the decision would be in conflict with a substantial number of representations made on planning grounds and where the outcome is not clearly predetermined by approved planning policy.
21. The Council consulted three neighbours and received objections from each of those neighbours. It also received an objection from a local Councillor. Mr B argues that as all the consulted neighbours objected, this was a substantial number of representations and so the decision should have been made by the Committee. The local Councillor also told Mr B that he had suggested the application be referred to the Planning Committee.
22. The Council has no record of the Councillor asking for this. In any event, the Council’s constitution does not state that applications should be referred to Committee when a request is made by a Councillor.
23. The officer’s report shows that the Council did not consider the decision would represent a significant departure from policy, and it did not consider the policy position was unclear or difficult to determine. The Council also did not consider the number of representations was substantial.
24. The Council has explained that is very rare to take small scale domestic extensions to the Planning Committee. It says that such applications are not normally referred to Committee unless the application has been submitted by an officer that has a close working relationship with, or works within the Planning Service, or where the proposal has a much wider impact than just immediate neighbours and has attracted 10 or more representations.
25. The Council does not provide any formal guidance to its officers on the number of representations which should be regarded as substantial. And so officers have to use their professional judgement to decide whether the number of representations are such that an application should be referred to Committee.
26. Following receipt of the neighbours and Councillor’s objections, the case officer referred the application to an Area Manager to decide whether the application should be referred to Committee. The matter was discussed by two Area Managers who both considered the application fell within the Council’s delegation criteria. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered whether to refer the application to Committee; I have found no evidence of fault in the way its decision was reached.

Complaint investigation

27. The Council carried out a site visit after Mr B made a formal complaint. Mr B considers the investigating officer should have prepared a report detailing her findings and should have retained photographs taken during the visit.
28. The Council says the photographs were taken and then deleted from the officer’s personal phone. It says it now issues mobile phones to its officers and so there is no longer a reason to take photographs on personal phones. In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council agreed to consider whether it would be expedient for officers to retain a separate record of site notes.
29. While it is best practice to retain notes and photographs taken during a site visit, I do not consider it was fault not to do so. The officer’s findings were included in the Council’s response. I am satisfied that the Council properly investigated and responded to the key aspects of Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman