Summary: There was no fault in the how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Mr X’s home.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council relied on misleading information that underestimated the impact of proposed development on his home. Mr X says the Council also failed to consider the damage the development would cause to his trees. Mr X says the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development results in a great loss of amenity for him and his home.
2. Mr X wants the Council to provide screening to reduce the impact of development on his privacy and living conditions. Mr X also wants the Council to protect trees on his land from damage during construction of the development and for the development site to be reduced in line with nearby homes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint;
• considered information on the Council’s website about the development; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. Most development needs planning permission from the local council. Before deciding a planning application, councils must publicise it so people may comment on the proposed development. Planning applicants may change their application proposals, for example to try to overcome peoples’ objections and councils may need to publicise the changes for further comment.
7. Councils must consider each application on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies, unless material considerations suggest otherwise. General planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, promoting residential development and protecting existing living conditions. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
8. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. Peoples’ comments on planning and land use issues are also material considerations, which councils must consider but do not have to agree with. An applicant’s behaviour and peoples’ legal rights as landowners are not material considerations.
9. Normally, a council planning officer will visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission. Normally, officers recommend the grant of planning permission if they consider the development is in line with planning policy and find no planning reason(s) of sufficient weight to justify a refusal.
10. A senior planning officer will consider most reports but some go to the planning committee for councillors to decide the application. Each council will have its own arrangements setting out when councillors should decide an application.

What happened

11. The Council received, and publicised, a planning application for development near Mr X’s home. The applicant changed the development, in response to objections, and the Council publicised the new proposals. Mr X, and others, objected to both the original and the changed proposals. Mr X’s grounds of objection included the impact of the development on his home from noise, disturbance and loss of privacy. Mr X also said the development did not comply with local planning policies and objected:

• to the size of the development;
• its unsuitable location;
• its extension into and impact on the open countryside; and
• to construction access issues.

12. After visiting the site, a Council planning officer (‘Officer P’) prepared a report assessing the development (‘the Report’). The Report listed the main grounds of objection received about the development, including those made by Mr X. The Report set out relevant national and local planning policies and identified several specific key issues for consideration in deciding the application. The Report also included a section on ‘other matters’. The Report recognised the development conflicted with a local planning policy and Officer P assessed it as complying with other policies. These policies concerned the objections made to the location and scale of the development and its impact on the open countryside.
13. The Report also considered the impact of the development on neighbouring property, including Mr X’s home. The Report set out the relevant local plan policy, which said development should “not cause significant harm” to the living conditions of existing residents. The Report expressly addressed the objection made by Mr X about overlooking from a first floor opening in the development. Officer P found any possible overlooking from that opening to “be very limited”. The Report also addressed noise and disturbance arising from the development. Officer P found it reasonable to expect increased movements at the development to be “limited”. In summarising the impact on neighbouring property, Officer P recognised development would have an impact but found no “significant” harm. Officer P decided the development met the relevant planning policy.
14. The Report also referred to Mr X’s concerns about construction access issues, which it said were not material planning considerations.
15. The Report recommended the grant of conditional planning permission for the development. In line with the Council’s published arrangements for deciding applications, the relevant Council planning committee (‘the Committee’) considered the Report. Mr X spoke at the Committee to object to the development. The Committee granted the development planning permission.
16. Mr X complained saying the Report was misleading and expressing dissatisfaction with the Committee’s consideration of the application. The Council replied saying it had properly assessed and decided the application in line with local planning polices and other material planning considerations.

Is there fault

17. My role is to consider whether the Council acted with fault in reaching its decision to grant planning permission for the development near Mr X’s home. Here, Mr X’s concern is the Report was misleading. The courts have considered cases involving planning officer reports. Briefly, the courts do not subject officer reports to forensic examination. Similarly, the courts will not subject comments at planning committees to detailed analysis but will consider the ‘general tenor’ of a debate. I have therefore considered Mr X’s concerns about the Report and the Committee’s decision against this background.
18. A planning officer’s report will not repeat all the available planning information. But, it should draw on that information, summarising policies and material issues, and assess the development proposals against them. Here, the Report properly and adequately identifies relevant planning policies, the site’s planning history, third party comments about the development, and the main material considerations to weigh and assess to reach a decision.
19. In assessing key issues, Mr X says the Report did not make clear the existing use of the land and buildings on the application site. I recognise there are variations in the words used in the Report to describe the existing use. And yet, overall, I find the Report consistently shows the original use and how that use had emerged over the years. The Report is also clear that a grant of planning permission would lead to a new use. I do not find the Report misleading on this point.
20. Mr X also says the Report did not properly deal with the development extending into the open countryside. I recognise the point Mr X makes and yet, the Report includes references to part of the application site being outside the curtilage (grounds) of the existing buildings. And, in describing the site, the Report refers to this land as ‘agricultural’. Overall, I am satisfied the Report properly and suitably covers the point. Having done so, it was Officer P in assessing, and the Committee in deciding, the application to reach a view on whether that extension into the countryside was acceptable.
21. Mr X says the Report did not adequately address the impact of the development on neighbouring properties, including his home. This concern is, in part, linked to that about the existing use of a building on the application site (see paragraph 19 of this statement). I recognise that some words used by the Council to describe the current use of the building on the application site may read as reducing the, added, impact of the development. And yet, Mr X’s objections refer to such a current use of the existing building. Overall, I find the Report’s assessment of the added impact of the development, including noise and disturbance, as “limited” is sustainable. I do not therefore find the Report misleading on this point.
22. I have also considered how the Report addresses Mr X’s concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy. I have taken account of the application plans and positions of the development and Mr X’s home, I find no grounds to question Officer P’s assessment that such impacts would be “limited”.
23. Overall, the Report provides a proportionate and suitable assessment of the development: I find no fault here.
24. Mr X was also dissatisfied with the Committee’s consideration of the application. I have considered the minutes of the Committee meeting. These show Mr X, and others, took their opportunity to speak to councillors before they decided the application. The minutes also show councillors had questions about the development and suggestions affecting the planning decision. The minutes show a councillor recognised neighbours’ concerns while finding ‘significant reasons to approve the application’.
25. Councillors do not have to ask questions about or debate each issue in a report. Indeed, they may decide applications on the information they have seen and read; the officer presentation; and after listening to what others say at the committee meeting, without any debate at the committee meeting. Here, the Report showed there were differing views about the impact and merits of the development. The Report provided enough information for councillors to reach a properly informed view on the main planning issues and whether to grant planning permission. Overall, I find no evidence to show fault in how councillors reached their decision to grant the development planning permission.
26. In conclusion, I recognise Mr X and the Council hold differing views about the merits of the development. However, I find no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission (see paragraph 3).

Back to top

Final decision

27. I completed my investigation finding no fault on how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the development.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman