Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council considered her objections and dealt with a planning application for a development next to a property she owns. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the decision-making process it followed to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X owns a bungalow in which her father lives. The neighbour applied for planning permission for an extension to their existing house, and to build a house on their land to the rear.
2. Miss X complains the Council
1. failed to give proper consideration to her objections to the development;
2. did not follow its own policy on ‘infill’ development when granting the permission.
3. Miss X considers the development will affect all aspects of her property’s amenity and result in a loss its value. She wants the Council to either revoke the permission or provide compensation.

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 it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X;
• considered relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Miss X to reply, and considered her reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss X says the Council has not properly considered her objections to the development. She is concerned about many impacts to her property. The Council received then summarised Miss X’s objections in their report. The report then considered the impacts on her property, responding to each of her concerns. Officers took the view that the distances involved between Miss X’s property, the new bungalow and the extension to the host property, meant there was not sufficient impact or harm to justify them refusing the application. Officers noted the location of Miss X’s outbuilding also reduced impact caused by the front of the new house. One window in the front elevation would serve a bathroom and the Council imposed a condition for it to be obscure glazed. The planning report considered the additional impact of the removal of the neighbouring garage and extension of the driveway. Officers accepted there would be an increase in traffic movements and fumes, but not so significant to give them reason to refuse the application.
8. The Council considered and responded to Miss X’s objections within the normal planning process. They gave their reasons why they did not consider those objections gave them good enough planning grounds to refuse the permission. We cannot go behind council decisions unless there has been fault by officers in the way they have reached that decision which, but for that fault, there would have been a different outcome. I realise Miss X disagrees with the officers’ views and planning decision. But it is not fault for a council to reach views or properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Miss X says the new property does not comply with the Council policy on ‘infill’ property in green-belt areas. The policy defines ‘limited infill development’ as ‘the completion of an otherwise substantially built up frontage by the filling of a narrow gap normally capable of taking one or two dwellings only’.
10. The use of ‘infill’ in the application description does not mean that policy was engaged. While the application description refers to ‘infill’, the new property towards the rear of the plot might best be described as ‘back development’, a building on land to the rear of an existing host property. The new property is not filling a gap in an existing series of house frontages, which is the circumstance relevant to the infill policy. In any event, the core issue for the suitability of the development for its proposed location is whether the Council has properly considered if the application as permitted was acceptable in planning terms, and reached that view by applying the tests relevant to the proposals. The planning officer report details how the new house is considered to integrate with the existing area in terms of design, scale and location. Officers conclude the development would not be out of keeping with the pattern of existing neighbouring properties and various nearby outbuildings.
11. I have not seen evidence that there has been fault by the Council here which would have altered its decision to grant the permission, and which would warrant us investigating.
12. I note Miss X considers the development will result in loss of value to her property. The impact on the value of an existing property caused by a new development is not a material planning issue. This means it is not a factor this Council or any other body acting as a local planning authority (LPA) is able to take into account when deciding applications, or use as a reason to refuse a permission. By not considering neighbours’ claims for loss of value, LPAs are acting in line with national government’s requirements. We cannot criticise LPAs for complying with those requirements. If Miss X considers the national government’s approach is wrong, it is a matter she might wish to pursue with her MP.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning process to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman