Summary: Mr X complained the Council has wrongly granted planning permission for extensions to an adjoining property that are not in line with the Council’s own design guidance or permitted development policies. He considers the development is overpowering and will dominate the neighbouring properties. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council has wrongly granted planning permission for extensions to an adjoining property that are not in line with the Council’s own design guidance or permitted development policies. He considers the development is overpowering and will dominate the neighbouring properties and complains the Council has not properly considered the impact on neighbouring amenity.
2. Mr X also complains the Council did not respond to his complaint in line with the Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• 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 permission

6. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7. 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 the impact on neighbouring amenity, traffic generation and noise.
8. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.

Permitted development

9. Not all development needs planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.

What happened here

10. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application to extend their property. Mr X objected to the proposal which he considered was poorly designed, overpowering and dominating, and out of character with other properties in the area. He was concerned about errors in the submitted documents and that the proposals were not in line with the Council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD).
11. Mr X was also concerned about the impact of the proposal on his residential amenity, and the disruption and potential damage that would be caused by the building works.
12. A planning officer visited the site and took photographs as part of their assessment the application. They then prepared a report recommending approval. The report sets out the responses from interested parties, and the relevant planning policies.
13. The report also sets out the planning officer's assessment of the proposed development. In terms of visual amenity they considered whether each element of the proposal was in line with the Householder SPD and whether it could have been constructed under permitted development rights. The officer concluded the proposed design and scale would be acceptable and would not result in a detriment to the street scene of host dwelling.
14. In relation to residential amenity the planning officer considered the impact of the rear extension on the adjoining neighbour yard area and habitable room windows was acceptable. They considered the impact of the side extension and change to the roof line were also negligible. In addition the officer concluded there would be negligible impact on the adjacent dwellings in terms of overshadowing/ overbearing and no adverse impact from overlooking of the yard or habitable windows.
15. A senior officer then granted planning permission, subject to conditions, by delegated authority.
16. Mr X disagreed with the decision to grant planning permission and made a formal complaint. He complained about errors in the approved drawings, which did not align with each other and said the property could not be built without trespassing on the neighbouring property. Mr X objected to the new porch as this extension was not in keeping with the other properties on the street and asserted the design and construction would overpower/ dominate the properties either side of the site.
17. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint and confirmed it would respond within 20 working days. As Mr X did not receive a response within this timeframe, he chased the Council. He asked for a meeting with the department director to discuss the approved plans and for them to explain how what had been approved complied with legislation.
18. The Council did not arrange the meeting Mr X requested but responded to his complaint two months later. Mr X was not satisfied with response which he considered was flawed and did not correctly reflect Government guidance on permitted development rights. He asked for his complaint to be considered further. Mr X again requested a face-to-face meeting with the department director.
19. Having investigated Mr X’s complaint the Council responded two months later. It acknowledged there had been a delay in responding to Mr X’s initial complaint and that he had not been kept updated. The Council apologised for this delay and recommended the planning service review its internal processes in relation to complaint handling.
20. In relation to Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s understanding of permitted development rights the Council confirmed it did not contend the front porch could be constructed as permitted development. Rather, its point was that something smaller but of similar scale could be constructed as permitted development so refusal for something very slightly larger would not be justified.
21. The Council also noted that private land ownership issues including the Party Wall Act are not material planning considerations. And that permitted development rights do not remove requirements for permissions or consents under regimes such as the Party Wall Act. Party wall issues are civil matters to be resolved between the affected parties. They are not matters that can be addressed by the planning service.
22. In addition the Council acknowledged Mr X’s request for a meeting but advised it did not consider this to be a good use of time given the limited resources available to the Council.
23. As Mr X remains dissatisfied he has asked he Ombudsman to investigate his concerns. Mr X maintains the Council has grated planning permission that does not adhere to its own policies or the permitted development rights. He also complains the officer who investigated his complaint was not adequately trained or sufficiently knowledgeable in the area to deal with his complaint.
24. In response to my enquiries the Council has reiterated its position that the addition to the front extension is a porch. It says Mr X’s neighbour does not require planning permission for the formation of a doorway or for the internal reconfiguration of the property. The Council does not consider the formation of a porch to the principal elevation of the property would be harmful to the character or appearance of the street.
25. The Council also notes its Householder SPD states “strict application of this guidance will not be appropriate in all circumstances. In all cases, the Council will take into account the relevant planning considerations and judge each application on its own merits”. It says that when applying this guidance it is important to consider the purpose behind the requirements. The intention in maintain a minimum distance to the side boundary is to prevent a cramped terracing effect. In this instance the Council considered a smaller gap to the side boundary was acceptable as the extension is set back from the principal elevation.
26. In addition the Council notes it has apologised to Mr X for the delay in responding to his complaint. It says Mr X’s complaint coincided with a high volume of work and a shortage of staff.

Analysis

27. 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.
28. 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 planning officer’s written justification is detailed and reasoned. It shows the officer considered the design and scale of the proposal and the impact on neighbouring properties and was satisfied they were acceptable.
29. 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.
30. Mr X says his neighbour will be unable to build the approved extension without encroaching on to his land and that they have not entered into a Party Wall agreement with him. I recognise this is a significant concern to Mr X but these are civil matters between Mr X and his neighbour. They are not material planning considerations and we would not expect the Council to be involved in these issues.
31. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application.
32. However, the delay in considering Mr X’s complaint was fault. The Council’s complaints procedure say the Council will respond at stage one within 20 working days. However in this instance the Council took 60 working days to respond. This is a significant delay which was compounded by the Council’s failure to keep Mr X updated or explain the delay. The Council has apologised for this delay. This is an appropriate response.
33. Mr X is unhappy the officer who reviewed his complaint at stage two of the process did not have specialist planning knowledge or experience. However, this is in line with the Council’s complaints procedure which says a corporate complaints officer, independent of the service/ department being complained about, will conduct the stage two investigation. We would not criticise the Council for following its published procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman