Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development in the next road along from where the complainant lives. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor would further investigation add to that already conducted by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council:
• failed to consult her on a planning application
• failed to consider a proposed first floor flat is an extension from a single-story shop unit
• failed to consider the impact of the development on her property; and
• failed to consider the impact of the development on the conservation area.
2. Mrs X says this has:
• enabled developers to take control of a private rear access lane
• caused loss of privacy
• caused her to suffer from dust and noise during the construction period
• caused loss of view and
• breached covenants
3. Mrs X wants the Council to reconsider the planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and information available on the Council’s website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not converse with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
8. Mrs X says the Council did not tell her about a planning application to refurbish a shop and extend the roof to create two first floor flats in a road behind the one where she lives.
9. The Council says it did not notify Mrs X because it believed her property does not share a physical boundary with the application site as there is an access road between the rear of Mrs X’s property and the rear of the development site. It says it based its determination of the site boundary on the adopted highway map provided by the local Highways Authority. This shows the access road as an adopted Highway Authority road.
10. Mrs X says the access road between her property and the site is a private road which she owns along with other residents. However, the Council is not required to check land ownership when considering planning applications.
11. The Council erected a site notice outside the development site. It also placed a notice in a local paper and wrote to statutory consultees. This meets the requirements for publication of planning applications as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015.
12. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
13. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a description of the proposed development, details of the relevant local and national planning policies and explanations of why the Planning Officer considers the proposal is acceptable
14. From the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The Officer decided the development would not cause unacceptable levels of overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of light to neighbouring properties. I understand Mrs X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment.
15. Some months later, the Council received a new planning application to vary the condition on the planning permission. The new proposal was to increase the footprint of the extension by about half a metre to match the alignment to the existing building. The Council displayed a site notice and published the application in a local newspaper. It also consulted statutory consultees and notified Mrs X and other neighbours.
16. Mrs X objected to the application on the following grounds:
• Overlooking, overbearing, and overshadowing
• Design
• Inappropriate development in a conservation area
• Loss of outlook, privacy, light, and open space
• Parking issues and increased traffic
17. She also objected because of building work, loss of view noise and odours. However, these are not material planning considerations.
18. Again, the Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. The report states that no objections were received. As Mrs X had objected this is fault. However, the new application was only to extend the footprint of the proposed extension to match the existing building alignments. The issues such as overlooking, loss of light and impacts on neighbour amenity were considered under the previous application. As the previous application was granted permission, the principal of the development was already established. The Council granted planning permission to vary the previous planning permission.
19. Mrs X’s concerns arise primarily from a lack of consultation on the original application. However, the Council met the statutory requirements for publicising the application by erecting a site notice and placing a notice in a local paper.
20. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement does say it will notify those with shared boundaries but there is no obligation for the Council to conduct land searches to established land ownership. The onus is on the applicant to provide the correct information. Also, the Highway Authority map shows the access lane between the rear of the application sites and the rear of Mrs X’s property as an adopted highway. Land ownership and access is not a material planning consideration. Nor is a breach of covenant. These are civil matters between Mrs X and the developer.
21. The Planning Officer’s report on the first application shows that it considered the impact of the development on neighbours and the conservation area. Therefore, I do not consider that not receiving a personal notification about the application has caused her significant injustice. From the information I have seen I consider it unlikely that had the Council received Mrs X’s objections to the scheme that it would have come to a different decision on the application.
22. The report on the second application does not mention Mrs X’s objections on material planning considerations. However, the objections all related to the principle of the development which had already been established by granting the original application. The Planning Officer decided the second application was acceptable as it replicates the previously approved form and height and only extends by a further half a metre. The Officer concluded there will be no additional impact on character and appearance of the conservation area and no additional amenity impact.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. I do not consider that Mrs X suffered a significant personal injustice when the Council considered the first planning application. Although she was not notified of the first planning application, the Council met the statutory requirements for publicising planning applications. It erected a site notice, placed a notice in the paper and considered the impact of the first scheme on neighbours before deciding to approve the initial planning application. Also, when considering the second application to vary a condition, the impact of the development on neighbours had already been considered and the principal of development established through granting the initial application.
24. From the information we have seen we consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman