Summary: Mr D says the Council did not follow the correct process advertising a planning application. The Council has already accepted fault in this matter. We have not found any evidence of additional fault or an unremedied injustice. We have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint because of the already accepted fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to follow the correct process publicising a planning application for a neighbouring property. He says he lost his opportunity to object and have the application significantly altered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
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 investigated how the Council dealt with the planning application. Mr D has made reference to issues with the neighbouring property not being built in line with the approved plans. That would be a matter for Planning Control at the Council to assess and does not form part of this investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr 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 build an extension on a residential property. In August the Council sent out neighbour notification letters inviting residents to comment on the application. Mr D did not receive a letter. In September a site notice was erected near to the application site and witnessed by the Planning Officer who attended the site on 21 September. At that visit the Planning Officer took note of the wider area around the property including homes to the side and rear which encompassed Mr D’s home. The Planning Officer submitted a report to the Council on 10 November. They noted the Local Plan and considered whether the extension would have an adverse impact causing significant harm on neighbouring homes. The Officer concluded the extension would not cause material harm and the Council subsequently approved the application with some conditions.
8. In January 2023 Mr D contacted the Council, he had not been told about the application and felt his opportunity to object had unreasonably been lost. He considered the extension would have a significant impact on his amenity. On 21 February the Planning Officer visited Mr D at his home and assessed the impact of the approved plans on Mr D’s property. In March the Principal Planning Officer emailed Mr D. They had reviewed the case file and spoken to the Planning Officer. They explained the Planning Officer had taken account of the potential impact of the extension on all the neighbouring homes and had not found cause to reject the application or ask that it be amended. Mr D corresponded with the Principal Planning Officer who agreed to visit the property. That site visit took place on 16 May. The Principal Planning Officer assessed the impact of the (now built) extension on Mr D’s home. They concluded the decision to award planning permission had been correct.
9. Mr D submitted a formal complaint to the Council on 14 June and the Council replied on 23 June. It accepted that Mr D should have received a neighbour notification letter in August 2022. It would carry out staff training. The Council stated that whilst Mr D’s home was not shown on the plans submitted by the planning applicant it did show on the system used by the Council, so the Planning Officer had been aware of Mr D’s home. In addition, the Planning Officer had visited the site and been aware of Mr D’s home as part of considering the wider area. The Council said it had considered Mr D’s objections about the extension and had not found it to be overbearing/ overshadowing or causing significant harm to amenity.
10. Mr D escalated his complaint on 6 July. The Council replied on 26 July. It reiterated that whilst a neighbour notification letter should have been sent to Mr D it had not found evidence to support his objections about the planning application.

What should have happened

11. 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.
12. When the Council receives a planning application it has a duty to publicise it and invite representations. The Council sends neighbour notification letters to nearby properties and erects a site notice near the planning site (usually on a highway frontage/ lamp post). The Planning Officer at the Council will consider any objections to the application as part of their assessment. The Planning Officer may also visit the site to assess the likely impact of the proposed build. The Planning Officer will take account of the Local Plan (Policy DM17) relating to developments not having an unacceptable adverse impact on adjoining properties by being overbearing/ overshadowing. The Planning Officer will produce a report assessing the merits of the application. The Council can grant planning permission with conditions.

Was there fault by the Council

13. The Council accepted in its initial complaint response in June 2023 that it failed to send Mr D a neighbour notification letter. It recognised that he did not have an opportunity to object at the time to the application. I have not found any evidence of additional fault by the Council. I have considered the impact of the Council’s failure to notify Mr D in August 2022. Where this type of error is identified the Ombudsman will usually ask an authority to assess the complainant’s objections and consider if they would have made any difference had they been voiced at the time of the planning application. In this case the Council has already, on its own accord, assessed Mr D’s objections. Two Officers have been to Mr D’s home and considered his objections to the extension. Both Officers concluded the approved plans did not cause significant harm to Mr D’s amenity. I am satisfied the Council has taken all the required actions to redress its initial error. It has visited Mr D, considered his objections and explained its decision. I appreciate Mr D does not agree with the decision reached by the Council but it is a view the Council is entitled to reach. It is not for the Ombudsman to reassess the merits of the planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint. The Council has already adequately addressed the injustice caused by its error.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman