Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission to his neighbours’ extension. We find fault with the Council’s decision-making and its delay responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X distress, uncertainty, and loss of amenity. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission to his neighbour’s extension, following several years of previous refusals.
2. Mr X says the extension has significantly affected his home's amenities and reduced its value.
3. Mr X wants the Council to acknowledge the error and to put it right.

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 spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. Written enquiries of the Council were made. I considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. 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

10. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
11. 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 overlooking, traffic generation and noise.

Probity in planning

12. The courts have expressed the view that a planning committee’s reasons should be clear and convincing. The personal circumstances of an applicant or any other non material considerations which might cause local controversy, will rarely satisfy the relevant tests.
13. Planning committees can, and do, make decisions which are different from the officer recommendation. Sometimes this will relate to conditions attached to the permission or planning obligations secured through a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
14. If the planning committee makes a decision contrary to the officers’ recommendation (whether for approval or refusal or changes to conditions), a detailed minute of the committee’s reasons should be made and a copy placed on the application file. Councillors should be prepared to explain in full their planning reasons for not agreeing with the officer’s recommendation, which should be set in the context of the development plan or the NPPF. The officer should also be given an opportunity to explain the implications of the contrary decision, including an assessment of a likely appeal outcome based on policies set out in the development plan and the NPPF, and chances of a successful award of costs against the local authority, should one be made.
15. All applications that are clearly contrary to the development plan must be advertised as such, and are known as ‘departures’ from the development plan. If it is intended to approve such an application, the material considerations leading to this conclusion must be clearly identified, and how these considerations justify overriding the development plan must be clearly demonstrated.

What happened

16. The Council granted planning permission to Mr X’s neighbour to build an extension.
17. Later, the Council ordered the neighbour to demolish the extension as it was not built in accordance with the approved plans.
18. The neighbour appealed this decision and submitted multiple retrospective planning applications, all of which the Council refused.
19. Later, the neighbour submitted another retrospective planning permission for the extension. The Council reviewed the application during a planning committee meeting, where it was granted approval.
20. A month after the planning decision, Mr X complained to the Council about the planning committee meeting and its decision to approve the retrospective planning permission.
21. Ten months later, the Council responded, recognising the delay addressing Mr X’s complaint. The Council advised it had reviewed the planning and enforcement history of the case, the minutes of the meeting, and associated documents. It found there was no fault in how the retrospective planning application was handled or in the planning committee meeting itself. It also noted the corporate complaints procedure did not extend to the decision-making of elected members.
22. The following month, dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X escalated his complaint.
23. In the same month, the Council responded, stating it was unable to find sufficient grounds to proceed to a further complaint investigation as this would not provide any new findings.
24. However, in response to my enquiries, the Council shared it carried out an internal investigation. It found the decision to approve retrospective planning permission for the extension “does appear to have been made incorrectly and not in accordance with planning law”.

My findings

25. The Council has acknowledged delays in its communication regarding Mr X’s complaint. Instead of responding within the 20 working days specified in its complaint’s procedure, the Council took ten months to issue the stage 1 response. This delay is fault and caused Mr X distress and uncertainty.
26. Evidence provided by the Council shows it did not follow the proper decision-making process when deciding on the retrospective planning permission. As a result, the extension was approved incorrectly. This is fault and caused Mr X distress and loss of amenity.
27. To assess the impact on Mr X, I compared the retrospective planning permission with the originally approved plans. While the extension does affect Mr X’s amenity, the two plans are not substantially different. The overall dimensions – length, width, and height – of the extensions are comparable, with the differences limited to the side extension, which has a lesser impact on Mr X’s amenity. This is reflected in the symbolic payment detailed below.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by its delay considering his complaint; and
• pay Mr X £1000 in recognition of the loss of amenity.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman