Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application for an extension to their home.
2. Mrs X is unhappy about what has happened, because:
• the extension will reduce light and affect privacy in her home;
• the development involves building over a gas main and work on her land;
• an officer was rude and disrespectful to her;
• a building contractor was aggressive and made racist remarks;
• the Council was biased in favour of her neighbour;
• her family’s health was affected by what has happened; and
• the Council did not include information about the Party Wall Act in its planning decision.

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 Mrs 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 report.
6. I gave the Council and Mrs 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

Planning law and guidance

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.
10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Background

11. Mrs X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a rear and side extension to their home. Mrs X sent in her objections to the proposal.
12. A planning case officer assessed the application and wrote a report. The report included the officer’s views and recommendations and included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and design issues; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
13. The Council approved the application subject to conditions.

My findings

14. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. In the absence of fault in the decision-making process, we do not comment on the judgements made by a council’s officers and members.
15. In making its decision, the Council publicised the application, took account of comments from neighbours and other consultees, and considered the plans, planning policy and guidance. This is the decision-making process we would expect and in these circumstances the Council was entitled to reach the decision it has.
16. Mrs X’s most significant concerns are about matters for which the Council is not responsible. Other regulators are responsible for ensuring the integrity and safety of the gas mains supplies and networks, and the Council has explained this to Mrs X in its response to her complaint.
17. Mrs X says a contractor made racist comments. The Council is not responsible for the actions of third parties.
18. Mrs X believes an officer, who she says showed her little sympathy and laughed at her during a conversation, was racist. She also believes she suffered indirect discrimination, because there are rules or arrangements in place that put her at an unfair disadvantage.
19. The development she complains about is typical of many house extensions I have seen, and it has been considered by the Council in the way I would expect. I have seen no evidence to support Mrs X’s claims of systemic or indirect discrimination.
20. I do not doubt Mrs X’s sincerity about how she felt when dealing with others. But for me to find fault on this part of her complaint, I would need good evidence to demonstrate the truth of what she alleges. I have seen no real evidence of direct discrimination. The Council has already investigated Mrs X’s complaint about her dealings with the officer and shared its findings with her. I do not consider that further investigation now is likely to lead to a different or meaningful outcome for Mrs X.
21. Party wall and other private land matters are not relevant to councils when they make planning decisions. By granting planning permission, the Council is not deciding legal rights over land. Private legal rights and interests are determined by civil courts.
22. The Council’s planning decision includes one informative note, which states the decision notice is not a building regulation approval. Some councils use informative notes for information about a range of issues that are not directly related to planning decisions. These issues might include information about the Party Wall Act or warnings not to disturb protected species or public rights of way. Whether to have an informative note and what to include in it is a matter for each council to decide. We cannot say it was at fault for not including information about the Party Wall Act. We cannot know whether other individuals would have acted differently, if the Council had included different informative notes.
23. I saw no evidence the Council was biased in favour of the applicant. The case officer is obliged to take a view on whether to support an application or not and we cannot find fault when this happens.
24. Finally, even if we find fault, we cannot provide a remedy for injury to health. Only the courts can do this.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I completed my investigation because there was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman