Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application to extend to a neighbouring property causing him distress and potential financial loss. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He complains there were failings in the way the Council considered a neighbour’s planning application to extend their house near the boundary of Mr X’s property. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly consider its own and national planning policies when deciding the application. And the decision to approve the proposal will reduce options available to him to build on his side garden causing distress and financial loss.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and I discussed the complaint with him on the telephone. I read documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I also considered information available on the Council’s planning portal.
5. 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

Planning requirements

6. The law says Local Planning Authorities (in this case the Council) should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. National planning policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
7. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. A Local Planning Authority (LPA) must be able to show it has considered the material planning considerations that are engaged by the planning process. Evidence is usually found in the case officer’s report. The records should show what considerations were taken into account and what the LPA made of them.
8. Normally, a case officer will prepare a report, assessing the application against relevant local plan policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.

Key events leading to the complaint

9. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
10. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application to the Council to extend their property. The Council publicised the application and notified Mr X. The planning case officer visited the site to assess the application.
11. Mr X sent in objections to the proposal. These included his concerns about whether the proposal contravened Council policies and the impact onto his property and side garden. Mr X explained that historically there was permission to build a house on his side garden. Mr X was concerned his neighbour’s proposal could impact onto any plans he may have to build on the land.
12. The planning case officer prepared a report on the planning application. This explained the proposal, referred to the NPPF and relevant Council planning policies. These included the Council’s policies on extension and alterations, amenity, and residential standards. The report explained the consultations received including Mr X’s objections.
13. The planning officer explained their assessment of the proposal on design, character, and amenity against the Council’s policies. This included addressing Mr X’s objections. The officer considered the proposal was an appropriate scale and modest causing no loss of light or overbearing impact. The officer said it complied with the Council’s space standards with sufficient distances between properties. So, there was no loss of privacy or overbearing impact due to sufficient separation distances.
14. The planning officer considered the proposal acceptable in principle and met the Council’s relevant policies so recommended granting planning permission. The Council considered the application and granted planning permission subject to planning conditions.
15. Mr X complained to the Council about the planning permission. Mr X included his concerns about the effect it would have on his options for developing his side garden. Mr X said the proposal failed to meet the design principles in the Council’s planning policies for side-to-side distances between properties and there should be 1m gap to the boundary of his neighbour’s property. Mr X also considered the proposals failed to meet the requirements of the NPPF as the plans did not meet the Council’s policies.
16. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints. It explained the impact onto Mr X’s side garden was not a material planning consideration for it to take account of. The Council was required to assess the application on its own merits, and it could not have regard to what may or may not be proposed in the future on a plot of land. In response to my enquiries the Council says it holds no records of an existing planning permission for a dwelling on the side garden of Mr X’s property. And so, it assessed the application against the existing relationship between the two properties. The Council confirms it is normal practice to assess an application against the current situation. It says it would be unreasonable and unlawful to take account of what might happen or what could be there.
17. With the side-to-side distances required the Council confirmed that one of its planning policies refers to proposals retaining a 1m gap between properties and boundaries. This is intended to ensure there is a gap between properties to avoid a terracing effect. For example, if both properties were built right up to the boundary, then the Council considers it would look like a continuous form of development and potentially harmful to character of area. In this case neither property is close to the neighbouring one so building close to the boundary would not create a terracing effect.
18. The Council says its officers made a professional judgement on the existing relationships and distance between side elevations and Mr X’s house. The officers considered whether the proposal met with other aspects of its policies on distances and in respect to amenity. In this case the officers considered the distance between properties and side of Mr X’s house exceeded the distances in policy, so it met the requirements of the appropriate policies. This was reflected in the case officer’s report.

My assessment

19. Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
20. In this case, the evidence provided shows the Council advertised the planning application so residents including Mr X could comment on the application. A planning officer then visited the site and prepared a planning report on the proposal. The report considered the principal issues. These included relevant planning policies, the application plans, objections, and other material planning considerations, including the impact on neighbouring amenity, before the Council made its decision.
21. In addition, the Council was aware of Mr X’s objections including his concerns about the impact onto his property and side garden. The Council considered the proposed extension at the neighbouring property complied with its planning policies on distances and residential amenity. It has explained there is no requirement for it to consider any plans Mr X may have to develop his side garden as it is not a material planning consideration.
22. The Council followed the decision-making process we would expect and so we cannot say there was fault. Because of this there are no grounds for us to question the merits of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and approved a neighbour’s planning application to extend their house near the boundary of Mr X’s property.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman