Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his objections to a neighbour’s planning application. He also complained the Council did not properly investigate his subsequent complaint. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him considerable distress. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his objections to a neighbour’s planning application. He also complained the Council did not properly investigate his subsequent complaint. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused considerable distress to him and his wife. He would like the Council to provide an apology and a financial remedy, and to commit to improving its practices regarding planning applications.
2. Mr X also complained about professional malpractice by the Council’s planning department.

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 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the complaints referred to in paragraph one of this decision statement. I have not investigated the complaint referred to in paragraph two as Mr X could take this matter to court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
8. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
9. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered their comments 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. Planning considerations include things like:

• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets, and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.

12. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.

13. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded upon valid material planning reasons.
14. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.
15. Council officers and planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using ariel photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.

The Council’s complaints policy

16. The Council operates a two-stage corporate complaints policy. At stage one, the Council says it will provide a response within 15 working days. The policy says the stage two investigation is independent of the original complaint and the Council’s response. It says the Council will respond within 20 working days.
17. The policy says customers who remain dissatisfied following the stage two investigation may refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.

What happened

18. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
19. In 2022, the Council received an application for planning permission from Mr X’s neighbour.
20. Mr X submitted several objections regarding the proposed development to the Council. These included an objection that the proposed development would provide views from his neighbour’s property into Mr X’s outdoor space at the rear of his house. Mr X said the proposed development would also overlook one of his bedrooms and a landing space inside his house, leading to a loss of privacy.
21. A planning case officer visited Mr X’s property shortly after it received Mr X’s objections. The case officer discussed the proposed development with Mr X and took photographs of the site.
22. The Council subsequently received amended plans for the proposed development as part of the planning application process.
23. In late 2022, the Council produced a case officer’s report regarding the application. Part of the report referred to objections received and the impact on the local residential amenity. The report considered the proposed development would not result in such significant harm to Mr X’s residential amenity, in terms of loss of privacy or overlooking, to sustain a recommendation of refusal. The report recommended the application should be granted.
24. Shortly after the production of the case officer’s report, the Council approved the application.

Mr X’s complaint

25. Mr X contacted the Council to query the decision. He said the case officer’s report incorrectly said his property was already overlooked when this was not the case. Mr X maintained the proposed development would overlook his property, including providing views into a bedroom and bathroom. He asked whether the Council could consider changes to the extent of the issue of overlooking. Mr X also said the Council’s report did not address all his objections.
26. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s correspondence and told him it was investigating the matter as a stage one complaint.
27. Shortly after, the Council provided its stage one complaint response. It acknowledged Mr X’s neighbours’ existing property did not have the same level of overlooking as the proposed development. However, it said the height of the existing boundary wall would obscure the view from the development into Mr X’s outdoor space at the rear of his house. The Council said the case officer was aware of and considered all Mr X’s objections. It said the Council had considered the impact of the proposal to neighbours and said it considered the case officer had made the correct decision.
28. Mr X responded to the Council and said it had not addressed his concerns about views into a bedroom and bathroom in his property. Mr X asked if the Council could respond to this point as part of the stage one process.
29. The Council replied and said it considered any views from the development to Mr X’s property would be at obscure angles and at a significant distance. The council provided an explanation as to why it took this view. It said it considered this would not result in significant harm to Mr X’s amenity in terms of loss of privacy.
30. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two. He disagreed with the Council’s explanation and maintained the development led to a loss of privacy and provided invasive views into private spaces of his property. Mr X said the Council had not properly considered his concerns within the requirements of planning law.
31. The Council provided its stage two response in early 2023 and referred to a recent visit to Mr X’s property. The Council said it carried out the visit to obtain a clear understanding of the proximity of the development to Mr X’s outdoor space and rear windows. The Council acknowledged the development would be in view from Mr X’s bedroom and bathroom window. However, it said that due to the difference in levels, it considered this was not sufficient reason to justify a refusal of planning permission. The Council also acknowledged the development presented a potential for Mr X’s neighbours to have sight of part of his outdoor space. However, it said it considered this was not a natural or clear line of sight. The Council said it considered this did not result in any significant or unreasonable visual intrusion in terms of loss of privacy.
32. The Council said its case officer’s report listed and addressed all the points of objection. It said all relevant planning material considerations are taken fully into account along with all objections. The Council said it did not uphold the complaint and advised Mr X he could contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

What happened next

33. Mr X contacted the Council and said it had not addressed some key points. He said the officer’s report contained errors and was the basis for concluding the development would not result in a significant loss of privacy. Mr X provided further explanation as to why he disagreed with the Council’s decision.
34. Mr X subsequently asked the Council to consider a further complaint of professional malpractice by the planning department. Mr X said he considered the Council had deliberately misrepresented material facts which led to the approval of the application. He said the Council had tried to cover this up and had provided spurious reasons to justify the planning permission.
35. The Council responded and said it had provided its stage one and stage two responses. It suggested Mr X contact the Ombudsman.
36. Mr X asked the Council to consider his most recent complaint as a new investigation. He said his view of potential officer misconduct only crystalised after receiving the stage two response.
37. The Council said it considered the complaint was related to the matter already considered at stages one and two and said it had concluded its complaint process.
38. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought the complaint to us.

Analysis – consideration of Mr X’s objections

39. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider his objections. The Council says it did consider the objections received, including those submitted by Mr X. It says it addressed the objections within the appraisal section of the case officer’s report and included some commentary as to whether the objections were material planning considerations. The Council says it reviewed the objections together with the submitted plans and site photographs and liaised with the agent to address the objection comments. The Council says it subsequently received amended plans and considered these before producing the case officer’s report.
40. As part of its response to our enquiries, the Council provided a copy of a procedure note, created following our investigation in May 2023 of a similar, separate complaint against the Council. The procedure note relates to the Council’s consideration of householder planning applications and reminds its planning service of the importance of including site specific details and reasons in its case officer reports. The note states the Council’s officer reports must contain a summary of any objections received and should address the objections within the appraisal section of the report.
41. In addition to the procedure note, in 2018, we published guidance for planning practitioners. This set out what we consider to be good practice for councils when recording planning decisions. This included:
• Ensuring there is a record of how all key material planning considerations were considered, and
• Having a system for recording reasons for decisions.
42. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that it did consider Mr X’s objections, and its explanation to Mr X that it considered the objections raised did not justify a refusal of planning permission. As previously stated, it is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
43. However, the Council has not demonstrated how it considered all the objections raised by Mr X at the time of its decision. This is because the case officer’s report only refers to Mr X’s objection regarding potential views into his outdoor space at the rear of his property; it does not refer to his objection regarding potential views into his bedroom and landing space.
44. The procedure note states the Council’s officer reports should include site specific details and should address the objections raised, giving reasons for the recommendations made. This echoes our published guidance.
45. The summary of the objections as set out in the Council’s report should have included the objections raised by Mr X regarding the potential views from the proposed development into his bedroom and landing space; this detail is site specific and forms a substantive part of the objections raised. The procedure note and our guidance therefore states this should be recorded. The Council’s failure to include this as part of the case officer’s report is fault.
46. The injustice from the above fault is the uncertainty, distress and frustration to Mr X regarding whether the Council properly considered his objections.

The Council’s complaint handling

47. Mr X says the Council did not carry out its complaint process in line with its procedure. He says the Council’s senior officers did not properly investigate his complaint, did not answer all his questions, and wrongly curtailed the process.
48. I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. The Council operates a two-stage corporate complaints process; it investigated Mr X’s concerns at stage one, escalated the complaint to stage two as requested and carried out further investigation of the complaint. This included conducting a visit to Mr X’s address to consider the points raised. I acknowledge Mr X says the Council ended its investigation too soon as it did not re-investigate the concerns raised after providing its stage two response. However, the Council considered the later complaint was in relation to the same matters as previously considered.
49. The Council’s complaints policy states it will refer service users who remain dissatisfied with its two-stage complaint responses to the Ombudsman. The Council provided a stage one and stage two decision, and subsequently referred Mr X to the Ombudsman. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X considers his later complaint to be new and separate to his previous complaint, I do not consider there is evidence to indicate the Council acted outside its complaints procedure. As a result, the Council is not at fault regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. Make a symbolic payment of £300 to Mr X in recognition of the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused, and
3. Remind staff of the importance of adhering to the Council’s procedure note and our published guidance for local planning authorities, specifically regarding the importance of recording the reasons for planning decisions.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman