Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with and considered planning applications for an extension to a property next to his house. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with these matters so have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He complains about the way the Council dealt with planning applications for an extension at a neighbouring property. Mr X says the Council;
• Failed to notify him of a neighbour’s second application for an extension at the property.
• Failed to consider the impact of the proposal onto his home and garden.
• Allowed the neighbour to submit a similar application for an adjoining neighbour without consent to increase the chance of success.
• Failed to take enforcement action when the neighbour applied a different finish on the extension to the one approved.
• Unreasonably delayed dealing with his complaints.
2. Mr X says this has caused him distress and the extension has resulted in a loss of daylight and sunlight to his home and garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 read the papers submitted by Mr X and spoken to him about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Mr 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

Publicity for planning applications

7. Councils have a statutory duty to publicise planning applications and to consider representations (either for or against the application) which people make.
8. The Council’s publicity procedure includes displaying a valid planning application on its web site. It sends a weekly list of all planning applications to parish/town councils, councillors, other interested parties (neighbouring properties) and local newspapers. The case officer will erect a site notice about the application giving 21 days to comments.

Planning Enforcement

9. Planning authorities may take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. Enforcement action is discretionary. Government guidance says that local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.
10. The Council’s enforcement policy refers to the discretionary powers available to take enforcement action. It says action should be proportionate when responding to possible breaches of planning control. An enforcement officer will investigate and may carry out a site visit. If they find a breach the officer contacts the person and advises of the Council’s intended action and options available to them to resolve the matter. The Council may request a retrospective planning application for the relevant permission/consent. The Council may take more formal action such as an enforcement notice or breach of condition notice.

Key Events leading to the complaint

11. Mr X lives in a semi-detached house. His home is not attached to the property he complains about. This property which I shall refer to as house B is attached to house C.
12. In 2017 the owner of house B applied to build a rear two storey and a single storey extension. The Council told neighbours of the application including Mr X and put up a site notice nearby. Mr X objected and said a two-storey extension would block sunlight to his rear garden. The agent of house B also submitted a similar application for the owner of house C.
13. The Council advised the agent it was likely to refuse both applications as they were mirror applications. If both extensions were built, they would adjoin each other. But the Council was concerned that if only one extension was built it would have an unacceptable impact on the other property. The Council said it was likely to have approved the applications if submitted as one application. The agent withdrew the applications.
14. Planning officers advised the owners and agent on options to either submitting a joint application or two separate revised applications by removing a first-floor bedrooms for each property. The owner of house B put in such a revised application for a part two storey and part single storey rear extension in 2017.
15. The Council told neighbours about the application and put up a site notice nearby. The Council received no objections.
16. A planning officer visited the application site and wrote a planning report on the proposal. This set out the key issues of the application including impact on neighbouring amenity.
17. The report referred to the impact on Mr X’s property. It said the extension at house B had been designed with a flat roof to minimise the potential for any loss of light to Mr X’s home. This would reduce the potential impact of the extension on Mr X’s property. The officer did not consider the proposed extension would result in a significant loss of light to Mr X’s property to justify refusing planning permission. And overall, the officer did not consider the scheme negatively impacted on to the residential amenities of the adjacent occupiers. So, the officer raised no objection to the proposal on residential amenity grounds.
18. The Council considered and approved the application subject to conditions. In June 2020 the owner of house B told the Council they were starting building works.
19. Mr X complained to the Council in March 2021 about the building works. Mr X said the Council made him aware of an application in 2017 and he had objected. Mr X understood the Council refused the application and he was unaware of any other application until his neighbour started building the extension. Mr X complained the Council did not tell him about the second application, the extension blocked sunlight to his garden and the Council failed to consider this issue.
20. The Council responded and said it told Mr X of the original planning application in 2017. The applicant withdrew this application and submitted a second one. The Council’s records showed it consulted Mr X on this application and would have considered any comments received.
21. Mr X replied he had not been consulted on this application and expressed concern about loss of sunlight to his garden. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns. It explained the applications submitted for properties B and C, the consultation carried out including the site notices and it did not receive any representations.
22. The Council confirmed the officer noted Mr X’s objection to the first application and considered the impact onto Mr X’s property in the planning report. The officer did not consider the extension design would result in a significant loss of light to Mr X’s property to justify refusing the application. The Council noted Mr X’s unhappiness it had approved the extension but was satisfied it had followed the correct procedures when doing so.
23. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. Mr X said his neighbours confirmed they were unaware of the second application and thought the extension was to be single storey. Mr X asked the Council for proof it had consulted him and other neighbours. Mr X said he would lose daylight to his garden and suggested officers visited his home to see the extension and impact onto him.
24. Mr X submitted a formal complaint in April 2021. Mr X asked why the Council failed to tell him and his neighbours of the second application for house B. And why it allowed house B to apply for planning permission for house C when the owners of the property did not want to apply. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint in May 2021 but advised its response would be delayed due to current workloads.
25. The Council responded in July 2021. It apologised for the delay in replying and not meeting its 20-day target for responding. The Council confirmed again it told Mr X of the application for house B in 2017 and noted his objection. It then sent notification letters to Mr X and neighbours for the second application in 2017. The Council confirmed a planning officer also erected a site notice and marked up a plan showing who had been notified and the location of the site notice.
26. The Council received no representations but noted Mr X’s objection from the first application and directly included consideration of the impact onto Mr X’s property in the planning report. The Council also referred to a list of neighbours consulted for the planning file. The letters were sent by standard mail so the Council could not prove they were actually posted. But all the Council records indicated that they would have been, and it had no reason to doubt they were not. So, the Council considered it followed the correct publicity procedures.
27. The Council confirmed the owners of house B did not submit an application for house C. This was done by the same agent for the owners of house C.
28. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council response and complained at stage 2 of the complaint procedure in July 2021. Mr X said he and his neighbours did not receive the notification letters for the second application. Mr X remained concerned about who had made the application for house C and why they had chosen the option they did. Mr X asked why the Council did not write to neighbours affected by loss of sunlight to their properties, and there was no site visit to his property to assess the impact of the proposed extension.
29. The Council responded to Mr X’s further complaint. It said it was for the owners of house C to decide what option they wanted to follow, and its role was to determine the applications it received. The Council confirmed it told all immediate neighbours about the application and the case officer made a decision based on the findings at the site visit about the impact of light onto Mr X’s property. The officer no longer worked for the Council, but it considered the officer must have felt there was enough information to make a judgement on the impact of the extension without needing to go to Mr X’s property.
30. The Council says the plans for the extension showed the relationship of a rear extension on the northwest of house B to Mr X’s house on the northeast. The Council would not expect an officer to need to visit Mr X’s home to be able to assess the impact of the proposal.
31. The Council noted Mr X still disagreed about the Council issuing notification letters for the second application. The Council confirmed it records showed it sent letters and posted a site notice. The Council had no reason to doubt this but as it does not send letters by recorded delivery it could not provide any further evidence. The Council said it was not doubting Mr X’s claim he did not receive the letter or see the notice. But as it had no conclusive evidence it could not reach a different conclusion.

Enforcement action

32. Mr X submitted an enforcement complaint in April 2021 the extension finish was not according to the planning permission. Mr X reported it was dark in colour and material. Planning officers contacted the owner of house B advising them to submit a revised application to see if the works carried out were acceptable. The owner submitted an application for a non-material amendment to the original planning permission. The Council told Mr X and he sent an objection to the application.
33. Officers considered the application and told the owner it would be refused as a minor amendment and should be submitted as a householder planning application. The owner withdrew the application and submitted a householder application to apply for retrospective permission for cladding on the property. The Council told Mr X about the application and erected a site notice.
34. The Council closed the enforcement case while it considered the planning application. The Council considered and approved the application, so the enforcement case remained closed.

My assessment

35. The Council says it followed the correct procedures for publicising the second planning application as its records state it sent out notification letters to neighbouring properties and an officer erected a site notice. But it does not have any conclusive proof that it did so other than its records. It is unfortunate that Mr X did not receive a letter or see the site notice. But I do not consider any further investigation will add anything to the Council’s investigation or would lead to a different outcome due to the time that has passed since 2017.
36. In any event the Council’s planning report shows the issue of the impact onto Mr X’s home was considered in the report. Mr X’s concerns about losing daylight and sunlight to his garden from the first application were considered and referred to. The officer did not consider there was a detrimental impact on to Mr X’s home. The Council confirms the planning officer visited the site and must have been able to assess the impact of the proposal onto Mr X’s property without visiting his house. It is satisfied from the orientation of the properties that it would not expect an officer to visit Mr X’s property to assess the impact and it could be done from house B.
37. I am aware Mr X disagrees with the officers’ view, but this was a professional judgement they were entitled to make. It also shows that it is unlikely the decision to approve would have been any different even if Mr X had been aware of the second application and objected.
38. Mr X raised concern the owner of house B applied for planning permission for an extension at house C without the owner’s consent. The Council confirms the agent used by house B submitted an application for house C. It was not the owner of house B. The Council has no other information about the application. There have been no further applications submitted for house C. It is for the owners of house C to pursue of they have any concerns about applications being submitted without their consent.
39. The Council’s evidence shows it dealt with Mr X’s concerns about the finish to the extension as an enforcement case. The owner of house B submitted a retrospective planning application for the finish. The Council notified Mr X and decided to approve the application. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault as the Council’s actions were according to its enforcement policy whereby it can request a retrospective planning application to decide if the changes are acceptable.
40. The Council accepted it did not respond to Mr X’s complaint in April 2021 within its 20-day target. While the Council did not comply with its target, I do not consider this it significant enough to warrant a finding of fault by the Council. This is because the Council told Mr X there would be a delay in its response. In addition, the documents show that officers had already responded to most of Mr X’s concerns at that point. The Council also apologised to Mr X for the delay which is suitable action for it to take.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I am completing my investigation. I have found no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with and considered planning applications for an extension to a property next to Mr X’s house.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman