Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approval of a planning application or its actions following a report of a breach of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council was biased when it approved her neighbour’s planning application to build an annexe in the grounds of their home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Planning permission

5. Most development needs planning permission from the council. Councils must consider each planning application on its own merits. They must also decide applications in line with relevant policies in their development plans unless material planning considerations indicate they should not.
6. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest but not private matters. Examples of material considerations are overlooking and overshadowing. The view from people’s homes and potential changes to house prices are not material planning considerations.
7. A planning case officer may, but does not have to, visit the development site when considering a planning application. The case officer may also write a report assessing the proposed development against relevant policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to approve or refuse the application.
8. The courts have made clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.
9. The courts have made it clear that the fact there was a misrepresentation by a planning applicant or an error on an application plan is not necessarily a material planning consideration. Where a discrepancy in a plan has not been noticed, the Ombudsman will only criticise a council if the discrepancy would have:
• been obvious to any reasonable planning officer; and
• been material to its consideration (i.e. made a difference to the outcome).

Planning enforcement

10. If development takes place without the necessary planning permission or fails to comply with a planning permission, there will be a breach of planning control. Councils should investigate reported breaches.
11. Planning enforcement action is discretionary, so even if councils find a breach, they may decide to take informal action or not act at all. When deciding whether to take enforcement action, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant planning permission if they received an application for the unauthorised development.

What happened

12. Miss X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to demolish a garage and build an annexe in their garden. The Council confirmed the applicant advised the annexe was for elderly family members, which was supported by a doctor’s letter.
13. The Council publicised the application. A member of the public wrote to the Council to advise the access to the proposed site is a shared drive. The Council received amended drawings to show the correct status of the drive.
14. Miss X did not object to the application.
15. The application was considered by a planning case officer, who visited the site and wrote a report. The case officer’s report included:
• a description of the proposal and the site
• a summary of relevant planning history
• a summary of comments received
• relevant planning policy and guidance; and
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the impact on neighbours’ amenities.
16. The application was approved using delegated powers.
17. Miss X complained to the Council that:
• It had failed to obtain a mandatory form regarding connection of the annexe to the main sewer. She says the Council should not have granted planning permission without the form.
• The Council mistakenly referred to the front of her property as the rear.
• The Council failed to consider that use of the annexe will increase the use of the shared drive.
• The boundaries shown on the approved plans are wrong.
• The annexe is visible from her home.
• The annexe will impact on the value of her home.
• The applicant had felled mature trees on the site.
• The application did not include plans for a septic tank.
18. The Council confirmed:
• Details of drainage is not an automatic requirement for a householder planning application for an outbuilding.
• The error in referring to the front of her home as the rear is noted. However, the impact on the proposed annexe on her home was considered and this did not affect the decision to approve the application.
• Following receipt of amended plans, no further issues were raised regarding the ownership of the site. Boundary issues are civil matters between Miss X and her neighbours.
• The impact on the character of the area was considered in the officer’s report.
• Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.
• The trees on site were not protected, and the neighbour did not require permission to fell them.
• The neighbour has been asked to put in a retrospective application for the septic tank. If one is not received, the Council will consider whether to take enforcement action.
19. It is not the Ombudsman's role to decide whether planning permission should be granted or whether there has been a breach of planning control. That is the local planning authority’s role. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the correct process in determining the planning application or carrying out an enforcement investigation. If a council has followed the process correctly, we cannot find it at fault just because a person disagrees with its decision.
20. The case officer’s report set out the proposals, main planning policies and the key planning issues for deciding the application. It shows the Council considered the impact of the development on Miss X’s home.
21. As stated in paragraph eight above, planning officers’ reports do not need to be perfect and do not have to refer to every matter. Therefore, my view is that there was no fault in how the Council considered the planning application. I therefore cannot question its decision to grant planning permission.
22. The Council has also advised it will consider whether to take enforcement action if it does not receive a retrospective application for the septic tank. This is a decision it is entitled to take.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her neighbour’s planning application or the report of a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman