Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application without visiting the objector’s homes. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application. Without evidence of procedural fault, we cannot consider the merits of the decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Council failed to visit his property before granting planning permission for development at a neighbouring property. He says the Council should have waited until the COVID-19 controls were lifted before deciding on the planning application.
2. Mr B says his home will be overlooked and he will lose light and privacy in his garden. He wants the Council to reconsider the application or make changes to the permission such as the placement or size of the rear windows.
3. He also wants the Council to change its procedures to allow discussion between neighbours and planning officers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr B
• the Council’s response to his complaint
• the planning documents on the Council website
• Government guidance on planning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back to top

What I found

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In March 2020, the Government issued a planning update to councils recognising they may face issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In respect of planning decision making this said:

“We ask you to take an innovative approach, using all options available to you to continue your service. We recognise that face-to-face events and meetings may have to be cancelled but we encourage you to explore every opportunity to use technology to ensure that discussions and consultations can go ahead. We also encourage you to consider delegating committee decisions where appropriate. The Government has confirmed that it will introduce legislation to allow council committee meetings to be held virtually for a temporary period, which we expect will allow planning committees to continue.”

What happened

10. In May 2020, the Council received a planning application for development at a neighbouring property. The Council told the neighbours, including Mr B, by letter in June.
11. Mr B and several neighbours objected to the application for the following reasons:
• loss of privacy and overlooking
• loss of light
• impact on residential amenity
• impact on the local area
• over development
• noise
• over development; and
• drainage
12. The Planning Officer visited the site and prepared a report on the scheme. This report includes a summary of the objections received and details of the relevant national and local planning policies.
13. The report addresses the visual impact of the scheme on the area and the impact on neighbours.
14. Having described the surrounding area, the Planning Officer considered the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area.
15. The Officer also considered the impact of the scheme on the neighbours. They acknowledged the proposed window in the north-east elevation would appear to overlook the neighbour’s swimming pool. But the ridgeline of the existing extension will obscure the sightline. The Officer concluded the proposal will not create undue harm to the neighbour’s amenity.
16. There will be loss of privacy at the front of the plot due to the proposed balcony. But again, this is mitigated by the existing boundary hedge which is higher than the proposed balcony. In addition, a privacy screen will provide privacy when the occupants are siting on the terrace as the distance between the balcony and the neighbour’s pool is 25 metres.
17. Overall, the Planning Officer considered while the proposal will have an impact on the outlook, privacy, and natural light, this is not so great to warrant refusing the application.

Assessment

18. It is for the decision makers to balance the acceptability of the proposed development against any representations it receives, and national / local policy. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
19. Mr B says the Council failed to visit his home or those of his neighbours, before deciding to grant planning permission. He says the Council should have waited until the restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic were no longer in place.
20. However, there is no statutory requirement for a Local Planning Authority (LPA) to visit neighbouring properties when it is considering a planning application. Also, the guidance issued by the Government during the pandemic specifically encouraged LPAs to continue working and making planning decisions with no changes made to statutory deadlines.
21. In this case the Council visited the application site. It forwarded the Planning Officer’s report to the Ward Councillors for comment. It confirms no comments were received.
22. Following the Government advice on using innovative methods, the Council confirms it used Google Street View and Google Map Pro in addition to the site visit to inform its consideration of the proposal.
23. In view of the above I cannot see evidence of fault in the decision-making process followed by the Council. While Mr B may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
24. Mr B’s desire to change the Council’s procedures for dealing with planning application to allow for discussion between neighbours and planning officers is noted.
25. However, the law requires planning authorities to publicise all planning applications. They 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 consultation. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers are not required to enter into a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
26. Mr B also complains the Council’s response to his complaint was late. It has acknowledged this and apologised. I do not intend to investigate this point further as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I will not investigate this complaint. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission to Mr B’s neighbour.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman