Summary: Mr B has complained that there was fault in the way the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to extend the neighbouring property. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council considered the application, so we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that there was fault in the way the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s application to build ground and first floor extensions. He considers that:
• the application was incorrectly validated and the Council should revoke the planning permission;
• the Council failed to take proper account of the overbearing impact of the extension, overlooking of his property and the impact on the streetscene;
• the distance from the boundary does not comply with the Council’s guidance;
• the Council failed to take account of the need for access to build and maintain the extension, the adequacy of the foundations, and the removal of and damage to trees on the boundary;
• the case officer and Mr B’s ward member failed to respond to his calls and emails about these matters;
• the Council’s complaints process does not allow the adding of further complaints.

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. 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

5. I have considered Mr B’s written complaint and discussed his complaint with him. I have considered the complaint correspondence, planning papers, and comments and papers from the Council. I have had regard to relevant legislation and guidance. I have also sent Mr B and the Council a draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and Administrative background

6. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use). Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land.
7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. 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. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission.
9. General planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g., in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). However, it is for the decision-maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

What happened

10. Mr B lives in a detached house in a residential street with a mixture of detached and semi-detached houses on fairly large plots.
11. The owner of the neighbouring house to the north-west (the neighbouring house) submitted a planning application to build ground and first floor extensions.
12. The main side wall of the neighbouring house is around 3.5m from the common boundary. The main rear wall projects around 1m further to the rear than the main rear wall of Mr B’s house. The neighbouring house also has a single-storey garage situated directly on the boundary with Mr B’s property. The garage is set back around 2/3 of the way from the front elevation of the neighbouring house and projects around 1.7m beyond the main rear wall.
13. The side wall of Mr B’s house is around 1m from the boundary with the neighbouring house at the front, with the distance reducing to between 60cm and 30cm from the neighbour’s garage. There are no windows on the side elevation of Mr B’s house facing the neighbouring house.
14. There is a conservatory at the rear of Mr B’s house next to the neighbouring garage. On the opposite side of Mr B’s garden, a single-storey rear extension containing a living room projects around 7m from rear of main house, with windows facing inwards towards the garden. A substantial hedge of at least 2.5m runs along the boundary between the two gardens.
15. The submitted plans show proposals for a first-floor extension on the site of the present garage, extending back as far as the main rear wall of the neighbouring house, with a rear-facing window on the first floor. The remaining section of garage to the rear would remain at ground floor level, though slightly raised, and extended around 3m away from the boundary.
16. The Council validated the application and undertook the statutory consultation.
17. Mr B objected to the application. He felt that the plans were inadequate as they did not show the about the distance between the proposed development and his home. He was concerned about harm to the streetscene and felt that the design would be out of character with the area. He considered that the lack of separation between the houses would create a “terracing effect”. He raised concerns about the scale of the building following the extension, and that no other house had an external porch.
18. He was concerned that the first and ground floor extensions would be overbearing and that there would be overlooking from the upper floor rear window to his garden and rear extension.
19. He said that part of the roof, guttering, eaves, wall rendering and foundations would trespass on his land. He was concerned that trees and hedges would need to be removed, though the application form said that this would not be the case. He also raised concerns about access for construction and maintenance.
20. He left several messages for the case officer by telephone/email to ask her to visit to consider his concerns but received no response. He also contacted his ward councillor without response.
21. The case officer did not carry out a site visit but prepared a report on the application. The report summarised Mr B’s objections. It described the site and surroundings, and the proposals. It set out the relevant local and national planning policies. It identified the main planning issues: principle of development; design, highways, and amenity. It then went on to consider each of these issues with reference to policy and the concerns raised by Mr B.
22. The report concluded that the proposals complied with policy and so was acceptable. The Council granted planning permission under delegated authority.
23. Mr B complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. The Council considered his complaint through both stages of its corporate complaints procedures and commented on each of the concerns he had raised. It did not consider that there was any fault in the way that it had reached its decision to grant planning permission.

My assessment

Validation / inadequate site plan

24. Mr B considers that the Council should not have validated the application because the site plan submitted did not comply with what is set out in the Government’s Guidance on information requirements and validation. He also considers that this meant that the officer did not have sufficient information to judge the relationship between the application site and neighbouring properties.
25. The Council has explained that it is good practice to submit a site plan setting out greater than the location plan, but this did not stop it from validating or considering the application. It explained that it was able to use its own mapping system which shows additional detail.
26. As regards validation, I do not consider that there was fault by the Council. The Guidance says that there must be a location plan, and that a site plan should be submitted but that a proportionate approach should be taken to the information required.
27. I have not seen what is shown on the Council’s internal mapping system, but the online planning policy map available on the Council’s website shows site plans in some detail including distances from boundaries and to neighbouring properties and extensions. Aerial and street views are freely available on the internet and may also assist in assessing the relationship between properties. Moreover, the case officer specifically referred to Mr B’s concerns in the report. I see no grounds to conclude that the Council had insufficient information to assess the relationship between the application site and Mr B’s home.

Failure to respond to request for a site visit

28. It would be good practice to respond to a request for a visit, even if this were just to say that the officer was unable to visit or engage in individual correspondence on an application. However, the Council has apologised for any lack of contact in response to his messages requesting a visit but explained that this should be viewed in the context of the difficulties experienced by officers working from home due to COVID-19. I do not consider that any further action is needed here.
29. As to the lack of visit, there is no requirement to conduct a site visit, Mr B’s concerns were highlighted and considered in the officer’s report and there was sufficient information available for the Council to assess the relationship between dwellings. I do not therefore consider that the absence of a site visit constitutes fault in the way the application was considered.

Overbearing / overlooking / terracing effect / streetscene

30. Mr B considers that the neighbouring property will be overbearing and will overlook his property. He also considers that the extension will result in a terracing effect and will impact on the streetscene.
31. However, all of these matters were referred to and considered in the case officer’s report, and the officer explained why it was felt that each was acceptable in planning terms. It is not for the Ombudsman to question the officer’s judgment in this regard.

Failure to comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

32. Mr B considers that the extension should be set back one metre from the boundary to allow for maintenance as set out in the Council’s SPG on Extensions.
33. However, the existing garage is already situated on the boundary and there is no existing set back to allow for maintenance. The Council cannot reasonably require a set back from the boundary when there is currently none.

Boundary / access issues

34. Mr B has raised a series of issues relating to access to his land to enable construction to proceed, the adequacy of foundations, trees, and tree roots on the boundary.
35. Disputes over boundary issues including construction on or close to the boundary fall outside the remit of the planning system. These are private legal matters between neighbours and are covered by The Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
36. I note that the trees are not subject to a Tree Preservation Order, so there is no planning impediment to their removal.
37. As to whether the existing foundations are adequate to support the addition of a first-floor extension, it would be for the applicant to ensure that any works comply with the Building Regulations. These fall outside the remit of the planning system.

Complaint process

38. Mr B has expressed concern that he was not able to add further complaints at the second stage review of the Council’s complaints procedures.
39. The Council’s complaints policy states, “Please be aware that the review will be focussed on the initial complaint that was submitted and under normal circumstances will not consider fresh issues that have not been raised at the outset”.
40. It is for the Council to decide how to operate its complaints procedures. If it wishes to avoid complaints being expanded during the process, that is a matter for the Council to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have closed my investigation into Mr B’s complaint as I have found no fault in the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

42. Mr B has also raised concerns that his ward councillor failed to respond to his request for support.
43. Complaints about member conduct are considered through a separate process from the Council’s corporate complaints process. If Mr B considers that there has been a breach of the code of conduct, it is open to him to raise such a complaint through the Council’s procedures for dealing with member conduct complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman