Summary: X complained the Council failed to protect their amenity when it did not decide a prior approval planning application within the legal time limit. X said because of this, they have an overbearing development built on the shared boundary. Based on the evidence seen so far, there was fault causing injustice that should be remedied.

The complaint

1. The person that complained to us will be referred to as X.
2. X complained about the Council’s failure to control a large extension on land next to X’s home.
3. X said the extension causes loss of light and has an overbearing impact on their home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I read the complaint and discussed it with X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report. I also considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and discussed the case with the Ombudsman’s planning forum.
7. I gave the Council and X an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

8. Not all development requires 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’.
9. Some permitted development proposals require an application so the Council can decide whether it can or should control certain parts of the development, such as design and materials issues or access to the highway. These applications are known as ‘prior notification’ applications.
10. Extensions to houses can be permitted development providing they are within size limits. The regulations provide for even larger extensions that can be built following a prior notification application. Once the prior notification application is received, the Council has a time limit during which it must decide whether to allow permission. If it does not make its decision within this time, the development can be built without planning control.
11. Some councils issue guidance on how they would normally make their decisions and how they generally apply planning policy. The guidance is issued in supplementary planning documents (SPD) and can be found on council websites.
12. Planning guidance and policy should not be treated as if it creates a binding rule that must be followed. Councils must take account their policy along with other material planning considerations.
13. Amongst other things, SPD guidance will often set out separation distances between dwellings to protect against overshadowing, overbearing impact and loss of privacy.

What happened

14. X’s neighbour made a prior notification planning application to the Council to build a large single storey extension. The plans showed the extension was on the shared boundary with X’s home. X has a habitable room, a kitchen-diner, which faces towards the rear garden.
15. The application was publicised and X objected to the proposal because of the loss of light on the rear of their home.
16. The application was considered by a case officer, who wrote a report which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• comments from X;
• planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• an appraisal of the impact on residential amenity; and
• the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application because of the unacceptable overbearing impact the development would have on X's home.
17. However, the Council did not make its decision within the required time limit and so it lost planning control of the site. This meant that X’s neighbour could build an extension the Council would have refused.
18. X complained to the Council. It accepted it was at fault and offered £500 in recognition of the impact its failure would have on X. The Council explained the extension that was subsequently 0.5 metres higher and 1.7 metres longer than the limits normally considered acceptable under Council planning guidance.
19. X was dissatisfied with the Council’s offer and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

20. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
21. The Council intended to refuse the application because of the overbearing impact it would have on X’s home. It did not make its decision within the regulations’ time limit and this is fault.
22. Because of the fault, X’s home will be affected by a bulky and overbearing wall on the shared boundary.
23. I consider the Council’s offer to be too low, and so will recommend a higher sum. I will also ask the Council to review its working practices and procedure so that it might avoid the same fault happening again in future.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I found and to avoid recurrence, the Council has agreed to the following remedy:
1. It will pay X £1000 in recognition of the impact its failure will have on their loss of amenity. This will happen within one month from the date of our final decision.
2. It will carry out a review of working practice and procedure and make any improvements necessary to avoid the same fault happening again. This will happen within three months from the date of our final decision.
25. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I found fault causing injustice. I completed my investigation because the Council agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman