Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and approved a planning application. Or about its consideration of a breach of planning control. We have not seen evidence of the fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council:
• Granted planning permission for a house which overlooks his home; and
• Failed to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control

He wants the Council to inspect the new property and take correct measurements. If the property is not built according to the approved plans, the Council should take enforcement action. It should also insist the developer provides a screen to prevent overlooking. Alternatively, the Council should provide compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

What happened

8. The Council received an application to build a replacement property on a site above Mr X’s home.
9. A resident at Mr X’s home objected to the application on the grounds of:
• overlooking
• issues with noise, construction traffic & dust during construction phase
• possible noise from future occupants
• design is not in keeping with the area; and
• there is an increased risk of flooding if trees and shrubs are removed.
10. Members of the planning committee visited the site.
11. The Council considered late representations. It did not receive any objections from:
• the Parish Council
• the Highways authority
• the footpath society
• the Ramblers
• the archaeology team
• the trees and landscaping team or
• the wildlife trust
12. The Case Officer wrote a report on the application. The report refers to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarises peoples’ comments; and considers the main planning issues for deciding the application. The Officer recommended the Council granted planning permission.
13. The planning committee considered the application and a member of the public spoke against it. Following the debate, the committee voted to approve the application.
14. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer decided the application was acceptable. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
15. The planning committee considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
16. Mr X also says the property does not accord with the approved plans.
17. The Council says Officers have visited the site and measured the property. At the time of inspection, construction was in process and the property measured twenty centimetres above the approved height. However, it states some degree of tolerance must be applied and the development will continue to be monitored to ensure compliance.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and approved the planning application. Without fault in the process, we cannot consider the merits of the decision.
19. The Council confirms it has inspected the site following reports of a breach of planning control. And it will continue to monitor the construction to ensure the property complies with the planning permission. Again, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman