Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a development next to her home. She says this was based on inaccurate information in the case officer’s report. While there was fault when plans were not measured correctly by the planning officer, the Ombudsman is satisfied this did not affect the outcome of the planning application and so did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for a development of flats next to her home. This was because the case officer’s report included an inaccurate height measurement. She says this casts doubt over the decision and the Council’s procedures.

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. 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the written information she provided. I made written enquiries of the Council. I took account of all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint. This was sent to both parties for comment, before I reached this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. A developer submitted a planning application to the Council to convert an existing building into a modern apartment block. The development was 4 metres from Mrs X’s boundary wall and was 10 metres high. Concerns were raised by neighbours, including Mrs X, that the design was overbearing and out of scale with the neighbourhood. Following negotiations with the Council, the developer submitted an amended scheme. This included a height reduction and changes to the roof design to reduce overlooking.
7. In June 2017, the Council’s Planning Committee approved this revised scheme. The case officer report stated the height of the proposed development was 8.3 metres.
8. However, as the flats were being built, Mrs X became concerned because the height of the development seemed to be taller than what had been approved.
9. She reported her concerns to the Council. The planning officer made enquiries of the developer. The developer confirmed the actual height was 9.1 metres. This mistake occurred because the case officer took the measurements from a printed copy of the online application rather than using an online measuring tool.
10. Mrs X complained to the Council. She said more objections would have been made if the correct height had been known.
11. In response, the Council accepted there was fault when the plans were measured incorrectly. But it said it did not affect the decision to approve the application nor did it affect the number of objections because the incorrect height was not included within the application documents, only in the case officers report that was prepared after the closing date for comments.
12. It said the case officer’s report contained enough information about the relationship between the proposed development to neighbouring properties for the decision to be a sound one.
13. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council says it has now advised all planning officers not to take measurements from printed copy plans.

Analysis

14. Mrs X says the decision of the Council’s Planning Committee is unsound because it was based on inaccurate information. She says it also undermines confidence in the Council’s planning function. In this case, the height of the development was particularly significant because the developer’s original proposals were rejected because of their size and scale.
15. We do not reach our own view on the merits of a planning application or reach our own interpretation of a council’s planning policies. Our role is to examine whether there was fault in how the Council reached its decision.
16. In reaching my decision I have considered the case officer report and the Council’s responses to Mrs X’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s written enquiries.
17. The case officer’s report explained the concerns about the original proposal but was satisfied that the reduction in height to 8.3 metres together with changes to the design were sufficient to lessen the impact of neighbouring properties.
18. The Council has accepted this measurement was incorrect caused by human error. But the Council says this was minor and did not affect the outcome, so no injustice arose from this fault. I agree with the Council.
19. While the mistake was unfortunate and Mrs X’s frustration is entirely understandable, I cannot say this caused her a significant injustice for the following reasons:

• The contextual drawings of the proposed elevations accurately showed the relationship of the development to neighbouring properties.
• The case officer’s report included a detailed consideration of the proposed scheme including objections to its scale. The Planning Committee was therefore aware of the impact on neighbouring properties when it made its decision.
• The correct height had been considered by officers when assessing the scheme. It was on the basis of this accurate information that the case officer made his recommendation to the Planning Committee that it should approve the application.
• The inaccurate measurement was not included in information sent to consultees.

20. I am therefore satisfied that, despite the mistake, the Council’s Planning Committee was sufficiently aware of the impact of the proposed scheme on neighbouring properties. This is what the Council was obliged to do.
21. To avoid this situation happening again, the Council has reminded planning officers of the correct process to use when taking measurements from submitted plans. I welcome this.

Back to top

Final decision

22. While there was fault by the Council when it presented inaccurate plans to its Planning Committee, this did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice. For this reason, I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman