Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not consider all relevant information when making a planning decision. We have found fault with the Council for failing to publish or consider the information. We do not consider this caused an injustice to Mr X as it would be unlikely the decision would be different.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not consider all relevant information when making a planning decision. He said:
• information about a previously refused application was not available for objectors to see;
• the Council excluded this historic information from the planning committee report; and
• the officer and committee did not consider this information when deciding a recent planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered:
• Mr X’s complaint and supporting information;
• the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint;
• the planning documents for the recent application; and
• the planning documents for the historic application.
5. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. When the Council considers a planning application it must consider the impact a development will have on nearby properties. A Council can only consider 'material planning considerations' when looking at planning applications. The most common of these considerations are:
• Local and national planning policies
• Planning history of the site
• Overlooking and overshadowing
• Visual amenity (but not loss of private view)
7. The Council cannot consider matters which are sometimes raised but are not normally planning considerations such as:
• The perceived loss of property value
• Private disputes between neighbours
• The loss of a view.

What happened

Planning Application A

8. A planning application (Application A) for the erection of a new house in Mr X’s neighbour’s garden was submitted to the Council in May 2017. The Council published the information related to the application online. At the time, the Council did not identify or publish any previous applications that had been submitted on the site.
9. Mr X objected to the application based on the information available to him at the time. His objections focused on a range of issues including:
• the impact on the appearance of the street;
• the loss of trees;
• it being overbearing in terms of its relationship to neighbours’ houses;
• it being too big for the site; and
• it overlooking neighbouring properties; and
• the loss of privacy and light to neighbouring properties.
10. From the evidence I have seen, other residents from the area made similar objections. The officer’s committee report reflected these issues. The report goes into significant detail about the visual amenity and residential amenity in relation to the proposal.
11. Planning committee considered the application at planning committee in October 2017. The minutes show that a member raised concerns about the proposal being a tight squeeze for the site as well as parking and traffic issues. Another councillor moved a motion for a site meeting which was put to the vote and won. As a result, the decision was deferred to allow the planning working group to visit the site.
12. The minutes from the planning committee in November 2017 show the result of the site visit. Members raised points about the size of the proposed dwelling and garden, stating it was too large for the site. Other Members disagreed, stating the garden was adequate and met the Council’s requirements and the proposed dwelling was not overbearing to other properties.
13. The Council voted in favour of approval, and approved Application A in November 2017.

Planning Application B

14. In April 2019, Mr X noticed that details of a historic planning application (Application B) had been added to Application A’s online case file. He said this was not logged when he was objecting to Application A. Application B dated from 1986. It was for the erection of a dwelling in his neighbour’s garden. The Council had refused it.
15. Mr X complained to the Council about the omission of the planning history in relation to Application A. He said objectors should have been able to see it as it would have helped their case. In addition, he highlighted the planning history was absent from the Council’s committee report. He said the planning officer, nor the committee considered this information.
16. The Council acknowledged its mistake and apologised. It sent Mr X details of Application B including its reasons for refusal.
17. In 1986, the Council refused Application B on the grounds that:
• The site could not satisfactorily accommodate, in terms of the street scene, the siting of a new house while providing acceptable level of residential amenity of the occupants of the new house; and
• The proposed dwelling would be likely to prove detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring houses, as a result of the site’s limited size and location.
18. Mr X said these were similar to the reasons that he, and his neighbours objected to Application A. He said, if this information had been available to committee members, it might have swung their decision towards refusing the application. He asked the Council to revoke the planning permission and run the process again on a level and just playing field.

The Council’s response

19. The Council responded to Mr X’s request. It said it was regretful the planning history had been omitted from the case file and committee report. However, it said it was confident the reasons for refusing Application B were sufficiently addressed in Application A.
20. It went on to say Application A’s site was 9m wider than the site submitted for consideration under Application B. In addition, Application A’s committee report dealt in some depth with the impact of the proposal upon the street scene and residential amenities, which were amongst the concerns raised by residents.
21. The Council’s decision was subject to 14 conditions. These included the retention of all trees, restricted construction hours, the use of obscure fixed glazing, and the removal of specific permitted development rights. These conditions were in the interest of residential amenity of neighbouring residents.
22. The Council believed that even if the history of the site was referred to at the point Application A was considered, the previous reasons for refusal were satisfactorily addressed. In addition, it said planning applications are determined in accordance with the adopted planning policies of that time. The Council remained of the view that the permission granted for Application A was in accordance with the relevant policies as set out in the committee report.

My findings

23. The Council was at fault for failing to publish the planning history on the case file or refer to it in the committee report. I can see why Mr X considered this omission to be detrimental to him and the other objectors.
24. However, I am satisfied the Council has demonstrated it considered all the relevant issues, including those reasons for the refusal for Application B. It attached specific conditions to ensure residential amenity is preserved for the neighbouring properties.
25. I therefore have not found an injustice as a result of this fault. It would be unlikely the Council’s decision on Application A would have been different if the planning history was available. In addition, the planning conditions should limit any perceived injustice that Mr X considers the fault to have caused to him.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to acknowledge the site’s planning history when considering Application A. This fault did not cause an injustice. This is because it would be unlikely the Council’s decision on Application A would have been different if the planning history was available.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman