Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact of a planning application next to his home and has wrongly granted planning permission for the erection of a pair of three storey, four-bedroom semi-detached houses. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council determined this planning application. However the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint was fault, for which the Council has apologised.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact of a planning application next to his home and has wrongly granted planning permission for the erection of a pair of three storey, four-bedroom semi-detached houses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents and the photographs provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• 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

Key facts

5. The Council received a planning application to erect a pair of semi-detached dwellings at a site to the rear of Mr X’s home. Mr X objected to the application as he considered the new development would overlook his property, overshadow his garden, and reduce his privacy. He also considered it would result in a loss of light and affect the visual amenity from his property. In addition Mr X raised concerns about the parking arrangements, the density of the site and an increase in noise and disturbance from the development.
6. A planning officer assessed the application and prepared a report recommending approval. The report sets out the responses from statutory consultees and interested parties, and the relevant planning policies.
7. The report also sets out the planning officer's assessment of the proposed development. The officer considered the site was currently under-utilised and there was no objection to the principle of development. They also considered the impact on the character of the area and the site and determined the proposed dwellings would be appropriate. The officer noted there was less than a metre difference between the height of the proposed dwellings and the current adjacent properties.
8. In relation to the impact on neighbouring amenity the officer considered the proposal was unlikely to result in any significant harm to neighbours’ enjoyment of daylight/ sunlight. The officer considered the separation distance from neighbours’ primary windows and amenity area was sufficient to avoid adverse harm in terms of loss of light, outlook, or overbearing impact.
9. The officer also noted the first-floor windows on the side elevation of the proposed dwelling would be obscure glazed to preserve the privacy of adjoining neighbours. And that the rear windows would only provide oblique visibility towards neighbouring dwellings and views into the garden. The planning officer concluded there would be no significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity from the proposed development.
10. In addition the report notes the proposed development meets the parking requirements for dwellings of this size.
11. A senior officer granted planning permission, subject to conditions, by delegated authority.
12. Mr X complained to the Council about the decision to grant planning permission. As he did not receive a response he chased the Council and contacted his local councillors. The Council took three months to respond to Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for not responding in line with its timescales.
13. The Council confirmed Mr X’s representations were considered in the planning officer’s assessment of the application. It also confirmed the application was approved having been assessed in accordance with the Development Plan and other material considerations. The Council explained there is no provision within planning law for a third-party appeal and as such it could take no further action on the matter.
14. Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s response. He asserted there were many aspects that were wrong with the planning application yet the Council had only apologised for the delay in the complaint process. Mr X asked the Council to confirm it considered the planning officer’s report was up to standard and accurate. The Council confirmed it did.
15. As Mr X remains dissatisfied he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns. Mr X has provided several photographs showing the impact of the new development on his own and his neighbour’s property. The photographs are of their views of the site prior to and following the erection of the new dwellings. Mr X asserts the new development has severely impacted their amenity.
16. He also disagrees with several statements in the planning officers report. Mr X notes that the new development is higher than the properties on either side and does not sit on the existing building footprint or leave a healthy gap between properties. Mr X says the existing boundary hedge has been removed and there is no space to put any screening on the development site. He also considers the new development is overbearing and results in a loss of privacy for his property.
17. Mr X says the four rear facing windows in the new development have a full view of his garden. And that anyone standing at the closest window will have a clear view into a bedroom, the lounge, and the kitchen of his property.
18. In addition, Mr X notes the report contains several factual errors. It refers to a pair of three-bedroom semi-detached properties, when they are four-bedroom properties. Mr X is also concerned the report does not state that they are three level properties. He asserts this information was either deliberately left out, or the officer did not fully understand what he was assessing.
19. In response to my enquiries the Council says the drawings submitted with the application show two storey houses with rooms in the roof space. It says these types of dwellings are not commonly referred to as three storey. The planning officer’s report does not therefore refer to three storey dwellings as they are designed as two storey properties with an additional bedroom in the roof space.
20. The Council acknowledges the report incorrectly describes the properties as three-bedroom dwellings when it should have referred to them as four-bedroom dwellings. It also acknowledges that a further error referring to the properties as two-bedroom dwellings was not picked up by the senior officer who checked and signed off the report. The Council says this error would not have changed the officers’ conclusions or recommendations.
21. Notwithstanding the error regarding the number of bedrooms, the Council considers the report was clear in describing the overall form and scale of the proposed dwellings, and the impact on visual amenities and on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
22. The Council says the distance from the ground floor corner of the new dwelling closest to Mr X’s property, and the rear elevation of Mr X’s property is 17.1 metres. At first floor level it is 17.7 metres. It also notes the windows in the rear elevation of the new dwellings face directly down the gardens of the new dwellings. They have only oblique views of Mr X’s garden and are typical in a suburban location.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and where we find fault, to determine whether a significant injustice was caused to the individual complainant.
24. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission, but I am satisfied the Council took account of all the relevant evidence and followed a proper decision-making process. The case officer’s written justification is detailed and reasoned. Although it incorrectly describes the number of bedrooms in the new dwellings, the report shows the officer considered the main planning considerations.
25. Provided they have regard to all material considerations, it is for the decision maker to decide what weight to give to the material considerations in each application.
26. While we would expect an officer’s report to accurately describe the proposed development, I am not persuaded that the error regarding the number of bedrooms affected the outcome of the application.
27. Mr X is concerned the planning officer did not carry out a site visit or speak to residents on his street, several of whom had raised objections to the proposed development.
28. Council officers are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Nor are they required to enter into discussions with members of the public who have objected to a planning application. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. Officers will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using ariel photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.
29. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council determined this planning application.
30. I do however consider the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint was fault. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within five working days and the officer dealing with the complaint will respond within ten working days. In this instance the Council took three months to respond to Mr X’s complaint. This is significantly outside the stated timeframes and clearly unacceptable. The Council has apologised for this delay. I consider this to be an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council determined this planning application. However the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint was fault, for which the Council has apologised.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman