London Legacy Development Corporation Ltd (18 006 510)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 05 Jul 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The complaint is about the planning permission the Development Corporation gave to a development to Mrs F’s neighbouring block. The Ombudsman’s view is there was no fault, so we have no powers to question the merits of the decision.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs F, complains about the planning permission the Corporation’s Planning Committee granted for the building that adjoins her flat. She complains:
    • The planning officer gave the panel inaccurate, incomplete and biased information. And he did not correct inaccurate statements from Committee members, despite having visited her flat three times.
    • The Committee did not give enough reasons for not following planning policy and guidance.
    • The Committee’s decision was predetermined.
    • The permission the Committee granted was a revision to an earlier refused permission. The earlier refusal was because of, among other reasons, the effect on her amenity. But the discussion concentrated on changes of height. It did not consider the fact the new proposals were as overbearing and as close to her flat as the old application.
    • The discussion about the height of the development was misleading. The plans measured the top of the existing building from the top of the lift overrun. But the comparison height of the new building did not include a lift overrun.
  2. Mrs F says she has been told the planned development would devalue her flat by tens of thousands of pounds. She seeks compensation for that loss of value.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs F;
    • made enquiries of the Corporation and considered its response;
    • listened to a recording of the Planning Committee’s discussion of the application and read the minutes of that meeting;
    • looked at the publicly available planning file;
    • spoken to Mrs F;
    • written to Mrs F and the local planning authority with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

  1. The role of local planning authorities (LPA) is to balance the right of a landowner to do what s/he wishes with his or her land and property against the public and private interests of those who own and enjoy land that may be affected by development. Provided there was no administrative fault in the way the local planning authority came to a decision, it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise the way it balanced these often conflicting interests.

What happened

  1. Mrs F lives in a flat on the top floor of a block that is next to an office block, which Mrs F’s flat and terrace faces towards.
  2. The LPA received an application for a two-storey addition to the neighbouring building. Its Committee refused that application, on the advice of its Planning Officer (Officer G), because of:
    • The impact on a nearby locally listed building.
    • The loss of daylight and sunlight to the locally listed building.
    • The design and appearance and its impact on the building and streetscene.
    • A loss of amenity and outlook to neighbouring properties. One of those properties was the flat Mrs F lives in.
  3. The developer presented new proposals. These decreased the size of the development by one storey (by over three metres). Officer G visited Mrs F three times, while considering the application and writing his report.
  4. Mrs F notes that one of the drawings the developer presented did not show a lift-overrun that would add to the height of the development. I asked the LPA about this. It said the architect said this was an error. But it noted the overrun was shown on other drawings. And that it would only add 250mm to the overall height.
  5. Officer G’s report to the LPA’s Planning Committee recommended approval of the new application. His view was the revised application overcame the earlier reasons for refusal. About the effect on Mrs F’s property he noted:
    • The revised scheme was now of a similar height and massing to the existing building.
    • The new proposal addressed the concerns about outlook by setting the building back and reducing its height.
  6. Mrs F spoke to the Committee. Officer G also made a presentation. The Committee took around an hour to reach its decision. This included a detailed look at the effect on Mrs F’s amenity. One of the panel members cited a photograph in Mrs F’s submission that, in his view, showed the development’s overbearing effect on Mrs F’s flat was acceptable. Another member noted a plan in Mrs F’s submission showed the development would only partially overlap Mrs F’s terrace. The Committee took a vote. One member abstained and the others voted to conditionally approve the application.

Was there fault by the Corporation?

  1. From the information available, I do not consider the LPA was at administrative fault in the way it determined the application. The Committee considered the impact on neighbouring properties. That was reflected in the Officer G’s report, which was before the Planning Committee. Mrs F also took up the opportunity to address the Planning Committee with her objections.
  2. The Committee spent some time familiarising and clarifying itself about the effect on Mrs F’s property. Having done so, it decided the changed application had sufficiently addressed the effect on Mrs F’s property, so it overcame the reasons for the earlier refusal.
  3. Mrs F complains the discussion focused on the reduced height of the new proposals, but did not take account of an unchanged closeness to her home. But the proper way to consider effect on amenity is to look at the development’s overall effect. My view is the Committee did this. It clearly decided the proposals did not so adversely affect Mrs F’s amenity, to warrant refusing the application. I understand Mrs F will continue to disagree with that view. But the Committee’s decision was one it was entitled to reach. And the Ombudsman has no powers to criticise the merits of decisions made without evidence of fault.
  4. There was an error with one of the drawings before the Committee (that missed a lift-overrun). But other drawings did show an overrun. The effect of the increase in height is small. And the Committee placed significant weight on an image in Mrs F’s own submission in helping it to reach its decision. So my view is that incorrect drawing did not significantly affect the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. My decision is there is not evidence of fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings