Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to send him letters to tell him his neighbour had applied for planning permission and so he had no opportunity to object to the initial and revised applications. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council because it did not send planning notification application letters by post. However, this did not cause a significant injustice to Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council failed to send him letters to tell him his neighbour had applied for planning permission and so he had no opportunity to object to the initial and revised applications. Mr B says the proposed development will affect the view from and sunlight to his home. He says he now has a lingering doubt as to whether the situation would have been different if he had been able to submit his objections.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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 have considered the information Mr B provided, the Council’s relevant planning policies and the information it has published on its planning portal.
5. I shared my draft decision with Mr B and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with a council’s development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Any local opposition a council receives to a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
7. The Council has a supplementary planning document (the SPD) which gives guidance on applications for rear and infill extensions. In the section on single storey side extensions the guidance says the proposed extension should not normally project out more than 3.6 metres from the wall of the original house. The SPD says two storey extensions would need to be in keeping with the original house and not appear bulky.
8. Councils delegate most planning decisions to a planning officer. The officer’s report on each application should show they have considered all relevant matters. But it is for the officer to decide how much weight to give to any material consideration when determining a planning application.
9. When a council receives a planning application, it must publicise it. The requirements are set out in law. The Council’s policy is to send letters to occupiers whose properties immediately adjoin the application site.

What happened

10. In 2018 Mr B’s neighbour made an application for planning permission for extensions to the existing property. Mr B objected to the application. The Council refused planning permission. That was because it considered the first-floor extension would over-dominate the host building, it would be out of character with the adjoining properties and it would have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.
11. In 2019 Mr B’s neighbour made a new planning application for a single storey and first floor extension to the existing house. The Council says, according to its records, it sent five notification letters to the applicants’ neighbours. The applicants then sent revised plans to the Council which it says it publicised in the same way. But in this case, although the Council’s normal practice is to send such letters by post, it contacted Mr B by email. The Council had Mr B’s email address on record because he had objected to a previous planning application by the same neighbours.
12. Mr B received letters about party wall issues and so he decided to contact the Council. He queried whether his neighbour had made another planning application. The Council confirmed his neighbour had applied for planning permission and told Mr B it had approved the application.
13. Mr B says the main issue for him is the Council has denied him the opportunity to object to a planning application which has an impact on his home. Mr B says the extended building will directly affect views and direct sunlight to an occupied first floor room. He says the Council gave him incorrect information right up to its final response to his complaint. He therefore questions what else might have happened which is not in line with the Council’s normal practice.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr B?

14. The law says a notice must be served on any adjoining owner or occupier. Service is considered complete when a document is sent to someone by post at their address. The Council failed to follow the law and its normal practice in this case and so it was at fault. The Council also did not put up a site notice to publicise the application.
15. In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council said it had reminded officers to ensure neighbour notification letters are sent to the property address and not sent via email.
16. I have looked at whether there was any fault in how the Council assessed the planning application to see if, had Mr B objected, it might have refused planning permission.
17. An assessment of whether the effect of a proposed extension on the amenities of neighbours is sufficiently harmful to warrant refusing planning permission is a matter for professional judgement. In some cases, a council’s officers may judge that the amenities of a neighbour are affected but not enough to warrant refusal of a planning application.
18. In this case the delegated report sets out the planning history of the application site with reasons why the Council refused the previous planning application. The report sets out the relevant local plan policies and the SPD on ground and first floor extensions. It considers the effect of the proposed development on the visual amenity of the locality and on the character and appearance of the host property and those around it. The report notes there are other first floor extensions in the same row of houses, but they are of considerably less depth. It concludes that the applicants’ decision to reduce the depth of the proposed extensions meant the extensions would be less dominant and would appear subservient to the main house.
19. The planning officer’s delegated report specifically considers the relationship of Mr B’s home to his neighbours’ house with the proposed extensions. The report says the Council had applied the 45 degree test to check the overshadowing effect on the first-floor window of Mr B’s home. The report notes the proposals passed this test. The report includes measurements of the extensions and the distances from the boundary with Mr B’s home. The planning officer concluded the proposals did not have an unacceptable impact on Mr B’s amenities.
20. In this case the planning officer’s delegated report considers the issues we would expect. There was no fault in the way the Council considered the material planning considerations. There is nothing which indicates that had Mr B objected to the planning application, the Council would have refused planning permission. I cannot therefore conclude Mr B has suffered injustice because of the Council’s failure to send notification letters to him by post.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation. Although there was fault by the Council, it has not caused injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman