Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly control development opposite land he owns. Mr X believes the development will affect the value of his land. We ended our investigation, as we are unlikely to find fault or a significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• took too long to investigate a breach of planning control;
• failed to take account of relevant cases before making its enforcement decision; and
• approved a retrospective planning application for commercial development opposite land he owns.
2. Mr X says the Council’s decision will affect the value of his land. He also believes the applicant is unfairly profiting from the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. I gave the Council and Mr X an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views other another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
10. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.

Background

11. Mr X owns land opposite a site that was agricultural land, but after an enforcement decision that the use had changed, the site owner submitted a retrospective planning application. His family once owned this land, but sold it before the use changed. He says they would not have allowed the land to be used for its current purpose.
12. The Council’s case officer visited the site and prepared a report. The case officer’s report shows the officer’s views and recommendations. The report covers the material planning considerations, including:
• the planning history of the site;
• the relevant local and national policies;
• comments from the public and other consultees;
• the impact on amenity;
• the impact on heritage and natural assets; and
• the impact on the environment.
13. The plans, the report and other information on the planning file were considered by the planning committee, which approved the application subject to conditions.
14. Mr X believes the committee was misled, because it was advised it could give no account to the fact that the applicants had previously ‘deceived’ the Council by claiming there had been no change of use.

My findings

15. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we must be satisfied that any alleged fault could cause a significant injustice to the complainant.
16. Mr X says the value of his property will be affected by the approved development, but the planning process is not intended to protect private rights or property values. I cannot say his amenities are directly or unacceptably affected by the development and so even if I could find evidence of fault, I think it unlikely we would be able to achieve a meaningful outcome for him.
17. The case officer’s report shows the material issues were considered before a decision was made, and so further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault.
18. The alleged deceit occurred before the Council considered and approved the change of use application. Each application should be judged on its merits and approved if it is acceptable in planning terms.
19. For these reasons, I should not investigate this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I ended my investigation as further investigation is unlikely to find fault or a significant injustice to the complainant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman