Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application which she said had adverse impacts on her privacy. We found no fault in the decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application for an extension.
2. Mrs X said that the Council did not send her a notification letter and so she had no opportunity to object to the proposal. She said the Council also failed to properly consider the impact of the development on her home, in relation to:
• the difference in levels between the application site and her home; and
• the impact of a side window in the extension, which faces towards her dining room.
3. Mrs X said that the new extension will greatly reduce privacy in her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mrs X and the planning case officer. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
7. I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
10. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
11. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
12. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.
13. For major development applications, councils must publicise the application by:
• a local newspaper advertisement; and either
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
14. For all other applications, including minor developments, councils must publicise by either:
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
15. As well as regulatory minimum requirements, councils must also produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the council’s policy on how it will communicate with the public when it carries out its functions. It is not unusual for SCI policy to commit councils to do more than the minimum legal requirements, for example, to put up a site notice and to serve notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
16. Details of how a council considered an application are usually found in planning case officer reports. The purpose of the case officer report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. 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.
17. However, 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

18. Mrs X’s neighbour submitted a planning application to remove a conservatory and build a single story rear extension.
19. Mrs X said she did not receive a neighbour notification letter. Mrs X said she would have commented on:
• the difference in levels, which means the impact of the development is greater, as the side window in the extension will face her dining room; and
• the side window is clear glazed and the boundary hedge does not protect her amenity.
20. The planning case officer report does mention the proposed window facing towards Mrs X’s home, but concluded there was not an unacceptable impact on amenity for neighbours. The case officer report also included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• details of relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and design issues; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to standard planning conditions.
21. I asked the planning case officer whether they visited the site. They said they had and produced a copy of their notes taken during the visit. The case officer said that they saw the difference in levels and the dining room in Mrs X’s house, but did not consider the impact on her amenity would be significant enough to justify a refusal or any additional planning control.
22. I asked the Council for evidence that a letter was produced, and it sent me a screen shot from its document management system that shows a letter was printed.
23. I checked the Council’s statement of community involvement, which said that neighbour notification letters will be used, but site notices were discretionary. The case officer explained that at the time this application was considered, changes to practice caused by the COVID-19 outbreak were in place. Under these changes, site notices were sent to applicants and their agents, when considered necessary. However, in this instance a site notice was not considered necessary.

My findings

24. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
25. In relation to the publicity process, I find no evidence of fault. The Council has produced a record to show the neighbour notification letter was sent. Because of this, I consider it more likely than not that a letter was produced and posted, and so find no fault.
26. The case officer report is brief in detail and does not mention differences in levels. However, I am satisfied that the case officer did visit the site and considered the impact the development would have on Mrs X before making a recommendation to approve the application. The Council followed the decision-making process we would expect for planning applications, and so I find no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I found no evidence of fault and so have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman