Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to allow a development in front of her home which will block her view and affect its value. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council approved a planning application for a development that will affect her home. Ms X says she checked the planning records when she bought her home, but there was no indication a development of this kind might be approved.
2. Ms X says the new development will be overbearing and affect her amenities.

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 read the complaint and discussed it with Ms 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 reports.
6. I gave the Council and Ms X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
9. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.

Background

10. Ms X bought her home, which was part of a larger estate. It was built to take advantage of views across an undeveloped piece of land. The planning documents for the estate included a plan which indicated this land might be used for a non-residential purpose. The case officer’s report said that, before this could happen, a new planning application would need to be submitted and approved.
11. Sometime after Ms X moved into her home, a planning application was submitted to build on the land in front of Ms X’s home.
12. The application was dealt with by a planning case officer who wrote a report setting out the key material planning considerations and his recommendations. The report covered:
• a description of the proposal;
• a summary of comments from the public and other consultees;
• relevant planning law, policy and guidance;
• relevant planning history of the site; and
• the impact on visual and residential amenities and other considerations, such as highway safety, rights of way and ecological matters.
13. The case officer recommended approval subject to planning conditions, as he considered there was no adverse impact on highway safety, or the character and amenities of the area.
14. The case officer commented on Ms X’s objections and said her main windows were orientated towards the road, rather than the view over the land. The minutes of the planning committee meeting repeat this assertion.
15. Ms X says this is clearly incorrect, and that the main elevation of her home faces towards the small piece of land and the view beyond it. This is the widest elevation and it contains most of her windows and the main entrance to her home.
16. Ms X also says that, before buying her home, she sought advice from an expert who reviewed relevant planning approvals and policies. The expert advised that the chances of development in front of her home that would obstruct her view were negligible.
17. Ms X had not seen references to the possibility for development of this kind when buying her home in the planning documents. The Council pointed out that there was a reference to possible future development on the land and an indicative plan included on an earlier application.

My findings

18. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. Where we find fault in the decision-making process, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant. To do this, we need evidence to show that, but for the fault, the outcome would have been different.
19. The planning process we expect is as follows. Before it makes its decision, the Council should take account of:
• the details of the application;
• relevant planning law, policy and guidance;
• comments from the public and other consultees, in so far as they related to planning considerations;
• any material planning considerations that is engaged by the process.
20. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s statements that say the main elevation of her home does not face towards the view across the land, but onto the street. I understand why she disagrees, and it may well be possible that other planning officers or planning committee members might agree with her.
21. However, we are not an appeal body and cannot insert our own judgement in place of the Council’s in the absence of fault in the decision-making process. When it comes to opinions and judgements, the test for ‘reasonability’ in administrative law is restrictive. To say a judgement is unreasonable, we would need to show that, when presented with the same facts and circumstances, no reasonable officer or member could have reached the same conclusion.
22. I cannot say there was fault in the way the Council made its decision, because:
• it followed the process we would expect before making its decision; and
• it’s statement on which elevation of Ms X’s home is the main elevation is not unreasonable.
23. I checked the document and plan on an earlier application the Council referred to. The Council is correct. The development was included in the plan and the case officer report noted it but said a further planning application would be necessary.
24. Even if I was able to find fault, it does not follow that we could recommend a remedy. To do this, I would need to be able to demonstrate that, but for any fault, the outcome would have been different. I do not think I would be able to say this, for the following reasons:
• Ms X’s home is a significant distance from the new development, more than is generally required to the protect amenities of dwellings.
• The main impact on Ms X is the loss of a view and the impact on her property value. These are not planning considerations and so no weight can be given to these issues by planning authorities.
25. I understand Ms X’s disappointment with what has happened and can see how she is affected by the development which now stands between her home and the view beyond it. But as individuals, we have little control over what others do on their land.
26. I also note what Ms X says about her expectations when buying her home and the advice she received from her expert. This is a private matter between her and the expert, and it is not relevant to the Council’s planning decision. It is never possible to predict with certainty what development will take place in future, and this warning is stated in the expert’s report.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman