Summary: There was fault by the Council as it referred to the wrong section of planning guidance in the planning report on a prior notification application for an extension. The Council’s apology remedies this injustice. The planning officer’s assessment of the extension, against the Council’s planning guidelines, was without fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s assessment of his neighbours planning application for an extension. He complains the Council did not ask the applicant to correct inaccurate plans.
2. Mr X also complains his neighbours planning application did not comply with the 45 and 60 degree guidance in the Council’s design guidance for residential extensions. Mr X says the extension will have a significant impact on the light in his home.

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 read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr 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

Key facts

8. Mr X lives in a semi-detached house. His neighbours put in three applications to the Council. One application was for a loft conversion, which the Council accepted was permitted development so did not need planning permission.
9. The second application was for single storey rear extension and a first floor extension. The Council approved this.
10. Mr X complains about the third application. This was for a 6 metre rear extension, with a maximum height of 4 metres and an eaves height of 3 metres. It was a prior notification application under article four of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. Prior Notification applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development, but the Council has to authorise certain elements of the work. The Council can only consider the elements identified in the order when making its decision. It has no authority to control anything else.
11. The scheme allows single storey extensions up to 6 metres for semi-detached houses. The householder must tell the Council of the plans and give it the addresses of any adjoining neighbours. The Council will then tell the neighbours.  Neighbours may object but only if it will harm their amenity, in which case the Council has 42 days to decide if the impact is acceptable.
12. Mr X objected to the third application. His objections were:
• The conservatory on his property was inaccurately drawn as it measures 3 metres but the plans show it to be deeper.
• Additional traffic.
• Loss of amenity, with concerns being directly raised in respect of line of sight and loss of light to his kitchen, dining area and garden.
• No need for the development.
• Out of character, possible excessive noise.
• Potential for the house to be rented to multiple tenants with potential effects on parking demand in the street.
13. As an objection was received, the Council had to consider the impact of the development and the levels of harm on the amenity on any adjoining premises.
14. The Council set out its view in the planning report. The planning report included Mr X’s view that his conservatory was not accurately shown. The Council said that using its mapping system the submitted plans seemed correct. However, even if the proposal extended 3 metres beyond the rear of the neighbours conservatory, the proposal would accord with the 45 and 60 degree tests in the Council’s planning guidance.
15. The planning report said ‘long established permitted development rights allow for 3 metres deep extensions to semi-detached properties and so in most cases, an extension projecting 3 metres beyond the rear elevation of an attached neighbour is acceptable. The planning officer decided that this, as well as the Council’s planning guidance, meant that an objection could not be reasonably raised on this ground. The planning report said that as Mr X’s extension was mainly glass, the level of light to the rear elevation would not be impacted unacceptably. It said ‘given the level of separation from Mr X, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on Mr X’s amenity by way of overlooking, overbearing or loss of light’. The Council granted prior approval in September 2022.

My analysis

Planning drawings

16. Mr X raises two main complaints about the Council’s consideration of the planning application. First, he says the Council did not consider his view that his conservatory was not correctly drawn.
17. The Council’s comments in the planning report are ‘using its mapping system the plans seemed correct’. I have measured the depth of Mr X’s conservatory shown on the existing and proposed site plans and his conservatory is shown as being nearer to 4 metres depth, rather than the 3 metres he says it actually is. (I have not visited his property, so have not confirmed his conservatory is 3 metres.)
18. The Council has also confirmed in response to my enquiries, that Mr X’s conservatory was drawn incorrectly on the plans. However, I do consider the planning officer was aware of this when assessing the application, as it is referred to in the planning report. The Council has said that as the planning officer had enough information to decide the planning application, he did not ask the applicant to redraw the plans. And, there was no requirement for the applicant to show the neighbours house on the plans at all. So, I find no fault on this point, the Council did take account of his comments but did not need new drawings.

Planning guidance

19. Mr X’s second complaint is that his neighbours planning application did not comply with the 45 and 60 degree guidance in the Council’s design guidance for residential extensions.
20. The planning report said the Council’s design guidance (point 4.2.2 b) says the dimensions of an extension or outbuilding should not usually exceed the following limits unless professional sunlight and daylight analysis proves otherwise;
• a - The height should not exceed a vertical plane inclined at 45 degrees from the middle of closet ground floor window of a neighbours property, or from the boundary, starting at a level of 2m above the ground on the neighbours side. The depth and width should not normally exceeds a horizontal plane inclined at 60 degree from the middle of a closest window of the neighbouring property;
• b - When a plot is enclosed by neighbouring buildings on or next to the boundary, the height of an extension or outbuilding should not exceed a vertical plane inclined at 45 degrees from the top of this building, the depth and width should not normally exceed a horizontal plan inclined at 60 degrees from the closed corner of this neighbours building.
21. The Council accepts that if the Council had assessed the application according to 4.2.2. b, the extension would not have complied. The planning officer was wrong to refer to guidance point 4.2.2 b as this is for houses that are enclosed on both sides by neighbouring buildings. Mr X’s house is semi-detached so is not enclosed on both sides, i.e. in a terrace of houses.
22. The Council has explained it assessed the extension using point 4.2.2. a only, which was correct but the report quoted the wrong reference.
23. I have looked at the drawings sent by the Council to demonstrate the extension complies with the design guidance. I can see the 45 degree angle was plotted at a height of 2 metres, from the middle of the conservatory rather than the closest ground floor middle window pane of the conservatory. Mr X has not complained about the height of the neighbours extension and it is clear the extension would comply with the guidance, whether the angle was plotted from the middle of the nearest window or the middle of the entire conservatory.
24. It is the length of the neighbours extension that Mr X complains about. The design guidance says ‘the depth and width should not normally exceed a horizontal plane inclined at 60 degree from the middle of a closest window of the neighbouring property’.
25. I have looked at the drawings sent by the Council. The Council has plotted Mr X’s conservatory at a length of both 2.8 and 3 metres, and the extension complies if the 60 degree line comes from the middle of conservatory glazed elevation. However, if the Council took the 60 degree line from the middle of the nearest window pane the extension would not comply with the 60 degree line. (The conservatory has a window pane, a glazed door and then a window.)
26. The Council’s view is that as the conservatory is all glazed, the midpoint of the whole conservatory is used to calculate the 60 degree angle from. This is because an extension would have less of an impact on light in a property with a conservatory as the elevation was fully glazed than if the elevation had windows surrounded by brickwork. If the windows were separate, it would used the midpoint of the closest window pane.
27. As this application was under the prior notification procedure, the Council had to decide whether it needed further information to decide if the impact on the neighbours was acceptable. The Council’s view was that it did not need further information as the extension complied with the design guidance. I have considered all the evidence and the Council’s reasons for using the midpoint of the rear elevation when calculating the 60 degree angle. I consider the Council’s decision making process on this point was without fault. The reasoning that the conservatory would allow more light to enter than separate windows explains why the Council used the mid point for the calculations and the Council’s officers are entitled to make a judgement such as this.
28. There was fault by the Council, as it referred to the wrong guidance section in the planning report. I will ask the Council to apologise to Mr X for this, but I do not consider it has changed the result of the prior notification application.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. The Council should apologise to Mr X for referring to the wrong section of the guidance in the planning report within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. The complaint is upheld, as there was fault, which can be remedied by an apology.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman