Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application as well as its decision to grant planning permission.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application as well as its decision to grant planning permission. Mr X says:
• There was a failure to follow the correct procedures/guidance on neighbour notification and community engagement.
• There was a failure to follow correct procedures/guidance on communication/liaison with objectors.
• There was a failure to take into account relevant council policy/guidance on neighbourliness, outlook, daylight, overshadowing, sunlight, existing building lines, and overbearing.
2. Mr X says the proposed development will have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity and enjoyment of his property. He wants the Council to instruct the developer to amend the plans to reduce the impact on neighbours.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I examined the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I examined details of the planning application available on the Council’s website. I sent my initial thoughts on the complaint to Mr X and the Council and invited the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s home is on the upper floors of an apartment building. The Council received a planning application for a neighbouring apartment building. The application proposed a roof extension to raise the height of that building to match that of Mr X’s building.
7. Mr X says the roof extension would affect his outlook and privacy. He says it would reduce daylight and sunlight to his home. He says the roof extension has a blank wall which would be overbearing and oppressive. In objecting to the application, he also said the proposed cycle parking provision did not meet Transport for London’s London cycle design standards.
8. Mr X sent his letter of objection to the application by email to the Council. He did not receive an acknowledgement.
9. The Council received 5 letters of objection from 6 individuals in 4 households. Its scheme of delegation requires planning applications to be dealt with by officers under delegated powers unless it receives a number of objections beyond a threshold of 5 objections. If 5 or more objections are received, the case officer is then obliged to review the application with the Chair of the Planning Committee to determine whether the application is referred to the committee or decided under delegated powers.
10. Th application was determined through delegated powers. The delegated report included information on the site, the proposal, the consultation process, representations that had been received and an assessment of the planning issues.
11. The officer set out the relevant national and local plan policies that applied to the application.
12. The officer also referred to the reasons for refusal of a similar planning application in the previous year. One of the reasons for refusal of planning permission was that the proposed roof extension would impact on the level of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties to the north and south of the application site by dint of its position and massing.
13. With the new application, the applicant submitted a daylight and sunlight report to address this particular reason for refusal. The daylight and sunlight report stated the impact on neighbouring properties would be within an acceptable range.
14. The officer assessed the planning issues of the application. In doing so, the officer clearly addressed the objections that had been set out including the loss of daylight and sunlight as well as the overbearing nature of the proposal.

Finding

There was a failure to follow the correct procedures/guidance on neighbour notification and community engagement.

15. Mr X says the Council did not notify him of the planning application. He refers in this regard to the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which requires it to notify occupiers of properties immediately adjoining an application site as well as occupiers of other properties that in its view warrant notification. The SCI also says the Council will inform all those who make representations of the decision in writing.
16. The Council says it sent notification letters to over a hundred properties. This is contrary to Mr X’s claim that it did not write to him.
17. The Council is not statutorily required to send notification letters by registered post and so such letters are sent by ordinary post which does not have the same proof of postage that registered letters do. However, I note the Council retained screenshots showing the letters that were sent. On that basis, I do not share Mr X’s view that the Council failed to follow correct procedures on neighbour notification.
18. As to Mr X’s claim that the Council breached its SCI because it did not acknowledge his letter of objection, I do not find the failing was a breach of the SCI. The SCI required the Council to inform him and others of its decision rather than require it to write to him with an acknowledgement of his representations. Nonetheless, the Council accepted it did not acknowledge receipt of his representations and it apologised to him. I consider that was an appropriate remedy for the lack of courtesy.
19. Mr X says the planning application would likely have been referred to the planning committee had the Council undertaken proper consultation. Again, I do not share Mr X’s view. The evidence suggests the Council did notify neighbouring properties in accordance with the publicity requirements.

There was a failure to follow correct procedures/guidance on communication/liaison with objectors

20. Here, Mr X says the Council implemented a temporary change to its scheme of delegation increasing the threshold for a referral to the planning committee from 3 objections to 5. Mr X says the Planning Committee commented that ‘it was vital for Members and officers to actively consult and liaise with objectors’. Mr X says no active consultation or liaison took place in this case.
21. I am satisfied the Council met the statutory requirement on publicity in this case. I do not therefore find that it failed to follow correct procedures or guidance on communication with objectors. I do not consider a comment from the minutes of a planning committee meeting imposed an additional requirement on the Council beyond the statutory requirements.

There was a failure to take into account relevant council policy/guidance on neighbourliness, outlook, daylight, overshadowing, sunlight, existing building lines, and overbearing

22. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body. This means he cannot substitute his judgement on the merits of a planning application for that of the Council’s officers. We examine complaints to see if there was fault in the process leading to a council’s decision.
23. I have read the delegated officer’s report in this case. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the officer’s judgement and maintains there is an unacceptable impact on his home from the development. However, it is also evident the planning officer was aware of the issues Mr X raised and set out his judgement of the key issues in the report.
24. I am satisfied the report set out the material considerations that applied to the application and provided reasoned justification for the judgement reached by the officer. I am satisfied the Council took account of all material considerations including the proposal’s impact on Ms X’s amenity. I do not find fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application.

Back to top

Final decision,

25. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised here.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman