Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about consultation for an amended planning application. There is not enough evidence of injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to consult properly when considering an amendment to approved plans for a development next to his property. He says he thus lost the opportunity to comment on parking arrangements next to the boundary and rooflights that overlook the first floor of his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and checked documents available on the Council’s planning portal.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities must consult neighbours affected by a planning application. They can choose to write to neighbours, or to put up a site notice near the proposed development. They are not responsible if a site notice is removed.
7. In this case, planning permission for the development had already been granted, and the complaint concerns an amendment to the development. Mr X had moved to his property since the original grant of permission.
8. The Council accepted it had misdirected the notification letter intended for Mr X by using the name of the previous occupier, but it said it had affixed a site notice close to the site. Mr X said he and his neighbours had not seen it, and it must have been removed shortly after placing. The Council’s planning portal showed the date the notice was affixed. This is consistent with its recording of the site notice for the earlier planning application and suggests there was an understood common practice for affixing and recording site notices. On the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that the Council met its duty to notify neighbours despite the misdirection of the letter intended for Mr X.
9. I have compared the original plans with the amended plans approved by the Council. Both show the rooflights facing away from rather than towards Mr X’s property. It is therefore impossible for his first-floor bedroom windows to be overlooked by rooflights if the development is built as permitted. Therefore, any loss of opportunity to comment on the rooflights would not be relevant to potential injustice to Mr X. Overlooking is also only relevant where the separation distance is below the minimum allowed and the rooms are habitable rooms, such as living rooms and dining rooms. Bedrooms are not habitable rooms. And the minimum separation distance between Mr X’s property and the nearest property in the plan is 21 metres, whereas the minimum distance for vis-à-vis overlooking varies by planning authority, but is often as little as 11 metres.
10. The change in parking arrangements between the original and amended plans concerns the orientation of the parking spaces, but both sets of plans show vehicles close to the boundary with Mr X’s property. He considers the change to be significant, but the Council takes a different view. The parking arrangements are relevant planning matters the Council had to consider, but it was entitled to decide what weight to give to them. It is unlikely that investigation by us of this matter would find the Council would have reached a different decision as a result of comments from Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman