Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to correctly consider her neighbour’s planning application and whether there was precedent for approval. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made it’s planning decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to correctly consider her neighbour’s planning application and whether there was precedent for the approval of this type of extension in the neighbourhood. She says the Council:
• Did not carry out a site visit for the neighbouring properties.
• Made an error in the officer’s report about objections.
• Failed to consider the loss of amenities, protected trees and visual aspects.
• Made a decision contrary to local and national planning policies.

2. Ms X says she feels she has lost her privacy as a result of the extension and now cannot use her kitchen without having her blinds closed. She also feels it has decreased the value of her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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:
• The information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her representative;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
6. Ms X and the organisation 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

Law and guidance

7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. When considering planning applications councils can only take account of material considerations. These relate to the use and development of land in the public interest. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. Councils cannot take account of private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property.
9. 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 the area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed develop using ariel photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.
10. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decision was properly made and due process. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
11. The courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• Do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• Do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• Should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key material issues.

What happened

12. In early May 2022 Ms X’s neighbour made a planning application to build a 2.5 metre extension at the back of their property. The Council consulted all residents on the street, including Ms X.
13. The Council received several objections to the application. Ms X raised objections to the application. The objections were that the proposed extension would overlook neighbouring properties, that it did not have a design in keeping with the properties and it would cause a noise nuisance.
14. The Council’s planning officer carried out a site visit to the applicant’s property and took photos.
15. In early July 2022 the planning officer wrote a report, which included:
• A description of the proposal and site;
• A summary of relevant planning history;
• Details of planning policy and guidance;
• An appraisal of the main planning considerations and objections;
• The officer’s recommended approval of the plan.
16. The appraisal section stated the amended plans increased the height and depth of the privacy screens on either side. It considered the proposal would not lead to additional overlooking or loss of privacy greater than the existing windows. It talked about the distance between the extension and the neighbouring properties and the projection of 2.5 metres. It decided this would not result in an obtrusive or overbearing outlook for the neighbours.
17. Further it stated the materials used respected the contemporary design of the existing dwelling and immediate locality, and the scale and siting was considered acceptable. It considered that trees were not affected by the proposal and that any noise would not be greater than the level produced by people using the garden space.
18. Ms X complained to the Council in August 2022. She complained about several issues as she felt the Council had not sufficiently considered the objections raised. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint that the planning report wrongly stated the number of people consulted and objections received. However, it felt that all the objections received were addressed by the planning officer. It did not uphold her other complaints. It concluded the planning officer had considered all material considerations before reaching a decision.

Findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decision are made. We look for evidence of fault in the decision making process. Where we find it, we decide whether it caused a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
20. The planning officer carried out a site visit to the applicant’s property but did not attend Ms X’s property as she asked. There was no obligation on the Council to accept Ms X’s request to view the property and it is not fault that it did not take up the invitation.
21. The Council has accepted its report included an error when citing the number of people consulted and objections received. Although the numbers are wrong, the report covers all topics raised by those who objected. I am satisfied the error did not significantly mislead the decision maker and the Council could take proper account of the key considerations. Therefore, I do not find fault.
22. Material planning considerations include the impact of a proposed development on the neighbours, such as overlooking/loss of privacy, loss of light and domination. The test is not whether there will be any loss but, whether the reduction will reduce the neighbours’ amenity below a reasonable level such that it justifies a refusal of consent.
23. The planning officer’s report considered the impact on Ms X’s property. It discussed the impact in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy, and noise levels for neighbours. The planning officer concluded that there would not be sufficient loss of light, noise or privacy to warrant refusal of the application. The report also showed it had considered the design of the building and whether any trees would be affected by the extension.
24. Before it making a decision the Council considered the application plans, carried out a site visit, considered comments from the public – including Ms X’s comments – and considered planning policy. The Council has followed the decision-making process we expect, and I find no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman