Summary: Ms B complains the Council has not dealt properly with a planning application near her home. The Council is at fault because it did not consider the impact of or alternatives to the conditions it applied. Mrs B is left with an avoidable impact to her amenity and has suffered distress. The Council should pay Mrs B £200 for her distress and pay her £1000 for loss of amenity towards improvements to her property to reduce the visual impact.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complains the Council has not dealt properly with a planning application near her home because it:
• did not consult about the application properly;
• did not consider the elevations of the proposed development correctly;
• did not consider alternatives to the conditions applied; and
• did not consider the impact on her of conditions it applied
2. Ms B says she has suffered distress and the conditions applied have had a large 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. 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 spoke to Ms B and considered the details of her complaint as well as the Council’s response. I reviewed documents sent by the Council.
6. Ms B 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

The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement

7. This says that the statutory requirements are either a Site Notice or a letter to adjoining owner/occupiers. The Council’s notification policy says it will send a letter to all adjoining owner/occupiers.

What happened?

8. A planning application was submitted for an extension to Ms B’s neighbour’s house. The Council did not receive an objection to the planning application from Ms B. The Council visited the site before granting planning permission. It also applied conditions to the planning permission.
9. Ms B complained about the impact of the development on her and how the Council considered the planning application. The Council upheld her complaint and said there was nothing further it could do.

Analysis

Consultation

10. I have seen screenshots from the Council showing that it sent letters to adjoining occupiers, including Ms B. The Council complied with its notification policy. This is not fault by the Council.

Consideration of elevations

11. Publicly available plans for the development show the difference in levels before and after development. Photographs from the site visit clearly show that the Council gained a good understanding of the development site and the pre-existing levels.
12. The Council says it had sufficient information to fully assess the impact of the proposed development. I agree. I do not consider this to be fault by the Council.

Conditions

13. The Council accepts that it did not consider any alternatives to the conditions it applied to the planning permission. It acknowledges that there might have been other alternatives to the requirement for additional screening that were not pursued with the applicants at the time of the application. It also accepts a better outcome would have been achievable had it done so. This is fault by the Council. Ms B suffered distress and an avoidable impact on her amenity.

Other action taken by the Council

14. The Council says it now asks for sections through the property when there is an extension to the rear and the garden slopes away to the rear, making sure that any associated terrace or patio extension does not form the full width of the garden as was allowed in this case.

Injustice to Ms B

15. Ms B has suffered a loss of amenity. I have assessed this against the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Pay Ms B £200 for her distress; and
• Pay Ms B £1000 for loss of amenity towards improvements to her property to reduce the visual impact.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms B. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman