Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application near his home. We have found no fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application at a site next to his home. Mr X said the Council did not follow proper processes and allowed permission for an extra dwelling at the site due to a ‘loophole’. Mr X is concerned about the impact on his property and the area.

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. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and have spoken to him about it.
5. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and the planning documents available online.
6. 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

The use of planning conditions

7. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations. It goes on to say that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.
8. It advises that in considering whether a condition is necessary, authorities should ask themselves whether planning permission would have been refused if the requirements of that condition were not imposed.
9. National guidance says that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights or changes of use may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity.

Extant permission

10. Extant planning permission is essentially a planning permission grant that hasn't expired yet. These are permissions that were granted but have not been fully executed or have only been partially implemented.

What happened

11. The site next to Mr X’s property is occupied by a terrace of 3 cottages, a garage block and a large garden area. The properties have been vacant for several years.
12. Between 2011 and 2022, several planning applications were submitted and approved for the site. These included:
• demolition of the terrace and erection of one detached and two semi-detached properties,
• demolition of the terrace and erection of 3 detached dwellings,
• erection of a detached property.
13. There is an extant permission for the demolition of the 3 cottages in the terrace and the garage and erection of 3 detached properties.
14. In 2022, the Council approved an application for the erection of one detached house on the site. The design and access statement referred to the conversion of the 3 terraced cottages into 2 properties, but this did not form part of the application as permission was not required for this.
15. The Council did not attach a condition to this permission requiring the developer to convert the terrace into 2 properties. Mr X said the Council should have done this to prevent the net gain of properties on the site/in the village.
16. The developer decided to retain the 3 terraced cottages and build 1 detached house. Mr X said this decision was made during an informal chat with the Council rather than through a planning application. Mr X said this is not fair as he did not have chance to object to a fourth property being added to the site. He said there are family links between the developer and the Council and believes this unfairly advantaged the developer.

My findings

17. The developer already had planning permission for 3 detached houses on the site. The Council would have known this when the developer applied for one house. Because the erection of detached properties on the site was acceptable in principle, the Council was right to grant permission for the one house.
18. The retention of the terrace, whether as 2 or 3 properties did not need planning permission as it is permitted development.
19. The developer referred to the conversion of the terrace into 2 properties thus retaining a total of 3 properties on the site. However, this was not part of the planning permission.
20. Mr X said the Council said it could have attached a condition requiring the terrace to be converted to 2 properties so there would be no net gain of priorities on site.
21. There is nothing in the Local Development Plan that implies that the Council is trying to prevent the net gain of properties in the village. Therefore, it would have no reason to attach a condition or refuse development on this basis.
22. National policy and guidance require councils to only attach conditions where planning permission would have been refused if the requirements of that condition were not imposed. The development was agreed in principle as the site had an extant permission for 3 detached properties.
23. Furthermore, conditions should not be used to remove permitted development rights. On these grounds, we would have criticised the Council if it had attached a condition as the conversion of the terraced houses are permitted development.
24. There was no fault with the Council’s actions. It reached its decision in line with national and local policy and considered representations made. There is no evidence of family connections influencing the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault with how the Council handled the planning application Mr X complains about.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman