Summary: Mrs D complains the Council failed to follow procedures when assessing a planning application for a neighbouring property. We have found evidence of some fault by the Council which did not cause an injustice. We have upheld the complaint, because of the limited fault, and completed the investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council failed to follow procedures when assessing a planning application to extend a neighbouring property in 2022.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by 'maladministration' and 'service failure'. I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have considered how the Council administered the planning application in 2022. I have not looked at any subsequent issues Mrs D has raised with the Council about the actual building works to the neighbouring home. Those are matters for Planning Enforcement at the Council to investigate first. If Mrs D remains dissatisfied, she should use the Council’s complaints process before submitting a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mrs D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In July 2022 the Council received a planning application to extend a residential property next to Mrs D’s home. The Council issued neighbour notification letters and Mrs D submitted her objections to the plans later that month. She said the extensions would be overbearing with a loss of light. Both the front and rear of the property would impact on her. The rear extension would project further than 45 degrees from windows. On 4 August the Planning Officer emailed Mrs D, she had requested the applicant reduce the extension and for the 45 degree line to be shown on the plans. She explained the 45 degree principle and that it was only used as a “guide” and could be overridden in some cases. She also set out why she had not found a breach of the 45 degree issue at the rear of the property. Mrs D submitted photographs to the Planning Officer on 8 August.
8. On 10 August the Council received amended plans from the applicant. On 25 August the Council did another consultation on the plans including notifying Mrs D. During September and October Mrs D continued to express concerns about the plans and the impact on her home with the Planning Officer. On 7 October the Planning Officer met Mrs D at the site to discuss the case. That month further amended plans were produced by the applicant illustrating the 45 degree line. The plans were shared with Mrs D and she raised concerns about the dimensions of the build. On 21 October the Council considered the Planning Officer’s report and granted planning permission with planning conditions attached. The Planning Officer’s report detailed the policies considered and why conditions were needed. This included a planning condition to ensure the 45 degree rule was not breached by the size of the front extension. The report did not refer to how the 45 degree issue at the rear had been considered.
9. In July 2023 Mrs D raised a formal complaint with the Council. It responded on 17 July with a detailed explanation of the site and how the planning policies and supplementary planning guidance had been considered. I will not duplicate that information here, but I am satisfied it gives a clear explanation of the plans and the planning process. The Council said it was clear the Planning Officer had been aware of the objections raised by Mrs D in 2022 and acted on them by seeking amended plans. The Council found the Planning Officer had looked at the 45 degree line at the front of the site in the report and this was in line with the relevant planning policies. The Planning Officer had not found a breach of the 45 degree issue at the rear extension but had not put this in the report. It should have been included, but this omission did not alter the overall conclusion. In addition, the report also had not referred the objection made by Mrs D about the overall scale of the plans. Again, this should have been set out in the report. The Council detailed why the plans were acceptable in line with planning policy and that it was correct to grant planning permission.

What should have happened

10. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use). Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land.
11. When the Council receives a planning application it will notify neighbours and ask for their comments on the plans. Where objections are raised the Planning Officer will consider them and decide if the plans need to be amended. The Planning Officer can ask an applicant to submit amended plans and a further consultation process will be undertaken. The Planning Officer will produce a report that sets out the key issues considered alongside the relevant planning policies and guidance. Whilst the Council will take account of guidance it is not binding. If the Council grants planning permission, it can attach planning conditions.

Was there fault by the Council

12. There is fault by the Council because the Planning Officer report failed to set out two key objections made by Mrs D. However, as I will explain below, this fault did not result in an injustice.
13. The Council accepted in its complaint response to Mrs D that it had failed to include two key issues in the planning Officer’s report: namely the 45 degree line at the rear extension and the scale of the proposals. The Council accepted this was an omission that should not have happened and both matters should have been included in the report. However, the Council then explained to Mrs D how it those two matters had been considered. The 45 degree line at the rear had been looked at by the Planning Officer and explained in an August 2022 email to Mrs D. The scale of the proposals was assessed in the complaint response in detail and the Council explained to Mrs D why, even taking account of the various planning guidance and policies, the plans were acceptable. The evidence shows there was a failure by the Council to correctly record all the key objections raised by Mrs D in the Planning Officer report, but that omission did not mean the outcome of the planning application would have been different had the fault not occurred. The Council has detailed to Mrs D why it would still have approved the application. Ms D has also told me, in response to my draft decision, the 45 degree line at the rear of the property is not a key concern for her. However, I have retained the findings because they formed part of the case handling by the Council.
14. I have not seen any other evidence of fault in this matter. The rest of the case was dealt with in line with procedures. It is important to note the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision.

Did the fault cause an injustice

15. The omission of two points in the Planning Officer’s report did not result in an injustice to Mr D because the Council has explained to her why, even taking account of those two objections, the application would have still been granted planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman