Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to tell him about his neighbour’s planning application. And failed to consider the impact on his privacy when it granted planning permission. We will not investigate this complaint. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, says the Council did not tell him about his neighbour’s planning application. And it did not consider the impact of the development on his privacy when it granted planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr X
• copies of his complaints to the Council and its responses
• The planning information on the Council’s website, including the case officer’s report

Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
5. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
6. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
7. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.
8. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.

What happened

9. Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him about the application.
10. The Council says its records show it sent letters to several neighbouring addresses, including to Mr X. It also displayed a site notice outside the application address. It is unfortunate that Mr X did not receive the letter. However, the Council is not required to provide proof of delivery. It also displayed a site notice. On balance, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedure for publicising planning applications.
11. Mr X says the Council did not consider the impact of the changes to his neighbour’s property on his privacy.
12. The Council confirms the Planning Officer visited the application site. They prepared a report on the proposed scheme. This notes there are existing windows in the side of the property facing Mr X’s home. One of these will be bricked up and the other enlarged as part of the development
13. The Officer acknowledged the window will overlook the rear passage, and beyond this, Mr X’s rear garden. However, as the single large window will replace two smaller windows, the Officer considered there would be no significant change in terms of its impact on Mr X’s amenity. the Officer recommended the application for approval.
14. The Council agreed with the Officer and granted planning permission.
15. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the new window overlooks his property and cause a loss of privacy and that his neighbour agrees. He also says some of the building work is not being completed according to the approved plans.
16. In its response the Council confirms the original window openings covered 3.3 square metres. The approved windows cover 4 square metres. However, what had been built covers 3.9 square metres. The floor levels have not changed.
17. It also confirmed the neighbour has been advised that a retrospective application should be made to regularise the unauthorised work.
18. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, the Council sent out letters and erected a site notice. The Planning Officer’s report shows the Council considered the impact of the new windows on his property before deciding to grant planning permission. This is the procedure we expect the Council to follow. Without evidence of procedural fault, we cannot criticise the merits of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman