Summary: Mr B says the Council, in granting planning permission for a development, failed to consider its policies or the impact on his amenity. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• granted planning permission for a development which does not comply with national planning guidance or Council policies;
• failed to consider the impact the development would have on his amenity; and
• based its decision on a report which did not accurately record the layout for his property and the surrounding land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and
• considered the Council’s policies on development in rural areas;
• considered Mr B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Council received a planning application for a piece of land next to Mr B’s property. The land is in a rural area. The application proposed demolition of an existing barn and erection of a two-storey building to allow for a business at ground floor level and first floor ancillary residential accommodation. The Council had previously granted planning permission for a similar development on the site, although from a different applicant. That planning permission had expired. Mr B objected to the development as he said it did not meet the Council’s policies or national planning guidance for development in rural areas. The Council granted planning permission.

National Planning Policy Framework

6. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF says planning policies and decisions should enable:
• a) the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings;
• b) the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;
• c) sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside; and
• d) the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.
7. Paragraph 84 of the NPPF says planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable (for example by improving the scope for access on foot, by cycling or by public transport). The use of previously developed land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist.

Analysis

8. Mr B says the Council should not have granted planning permission for a development on the site next to his property. Mr B says the Council granted planning permission on the basis the development is a rebuild when it is a new build. Mr B says that, plus the fact the development is outside the village settlement and not a rural business means the Council granted planning permission when the development does not accord with Council policies or national planning guidance.
9. The first issue is the Council’s policy E7. As Mr B correctly notes, the policy is headed ‘re-use of rural buildings.’ Mr B says because the applicant will demolish the existing building and replace it with a new building the development does not meet the requirements of policy E7. However, the text of policy E7 refers to: ‘planning applications for the conversion of existing rural buildings and/or the creation of new buildings that support the development and expansion of the rural economy.’ I am therefore satisfied that policy is also relevant for new buildings. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for taking that policy into account. The report for the planning application also referred specifically to policy E7 and the officer’s reasoning for considering that policy relevant and met by the planning application. I am further satisfied the report for the planning application made clear the development was a new build. So, I am satisfied the Council did not grant planning permission based on a misunderstanding about whether the development was a rebuild. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council for how it considered the proposal for a new building or for its consideration of policy E7.
10. Mr B complains the development will take place outside the village settlement. However, the Council previously granted permission for a similar development on this site, although that permission had expired. That permission though established the principle of development on the site and was a relevant consideration for the Council to consider. In any event, I am satisfied the report for the application made clear the development would take place in the open countryside, outside the village and settlement boundary. The report also records the officer’s view that although the site is not within a defined settlement it is previously developed land, referring to the Council’s policies on development within the settlement hierarchy/in the open countryside. Development outside a village settlement is also not against guidance in the NPPF, which I refer to in paragraph 7. So, I do not consider because the development was outside the village settlement the Council had to refuse it. Instead, it had to consider whether the proposed development was acceptable in this location.
11. I am satisfied the report records the reasons the Council considered the development acceptable in this location. In particular, the Council noted although the proposed replacement building would not be a like for like replacement it would be similar in character and scale to the existing building. The report referred to the Council’s policy CSD3 which allows for sustainable rural diversification. The report also referred to the existing building not having intrinsic merit and to the fact the new building would use similar materials and would appear as a rural barn. The Council therefore considered it would not have any greater impact than the existing building. I recognise Mr B is likely to strongly disagree with the Council’s reasoning for allowing development in this location. However, as I said in paragraph 2, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the administrative process. Only if there is fault in the administrative process can the Ombudsman comment on the merits of decisions reached. In this case I am satisfied the Council considered the relevant policies on development outside the settlement boundary. The report also went into detail about the various policies and relevant sections of the NPPF which were relevant to this application, setting out the officer’s reasoning for considering the development acceptable in planning terms. In those circumstances I could not say the Council reached its decision with fault. That Mr B disagrees with the Council’s interpretation of its policies is not evidence of fault.
12. Mr B says the business proposed for the new building is not a rural business. I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The NPPF, which I refer to in paragraph 6, refers to supporting rural businesses. That does not, however, necessarily mean the business itself must be rural in nature. The fact the business is located in a rural area (which this one would be once planning permission was granted) makes it a rural business. I am satisfied the report for the planning application makes that point clear and specifically refers to the NPPF. As I am satisfied the Council properly considered the NPPF when granting planning permission for the development I have no grounds to criticise it.
13. One of Mr B’s concerns is about the size of the property that will replace the existing building. Mr B says the proposed building is too large for the surrounding area and will dominate the skyline. I am satisfied though the report for the application specifically referred to the height of the proposed building and that it would increase the height by 1.2 metres. The report made clear the development would not be like for like but would be similar in character and scale to the existing building. The report recorded the officer’s view the development would not be unduly tall or prominent in the landscape. The report also referred to the materials proposed for the building, recording the officer’s view the development would not have a greater visual impact than the existing building. I recognise Mr B is likely to strongly disagree with that view. However, as I have made clear, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of the Council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in how it has reached that decision. As the Council considered the appearance of the proposed development compared with the existing building and the overall height in granting planning permission I could not say it reached its decision with fault. So, I cannot comment on the merits of that view, no matter how much Mr B disagrees with it.
14. Mr B says in granting planning permission for the development the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his amenity. Mr B says as the planning officer did not visit his property the report failed to assess the impact on his amenity. Mr B says the development will overlook his property.
15. I have carefully considered the report for the planning application. I am satisfied the report set out the concerns received. That included Mr B’s concerns about the size of the development, overlooking, noise and disturbance, overshadowing, loss of light, more intensive use of the site and the impact of added lighting. The report went on to consider how the development would impact on neighbouring properties. The report recorded the officer’s view the change in use of the building would have no greater impact for noise, dust, odours and general disturbance than the existing lawful use. The Council also imposed a condition on the planning permission preventing external working and conditioning the times of work in the studio to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties. The Council also specifically referred to Mr B’s property. The report recorded Mr B’s property was 30 metres away from the development. The report referred to the fact a window would allow vision towards Mr B’s house and potential overlooking. The report noted the officer’s view that due to the separation distance this would not be significant or harmful. Given all of that I could not say the Council had failed to consider the impact on Mr B’s amenity. I recognise the Council has reached a decision with which Mr B strongly disagrees. However, as the Council has reached that decision properly after considering the impact the development would have on Mr B I have no grounds to criticise it. In reaching that view I note Mr B complains the Council did not visit his property to assess how the development would impact on him. However, there is no requirement for the Council to do that. I am satisfied an officer visited the site before writing the report and, as I have made clear, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the impact on Mr B.
16. Mr B says the Council failed to properly understand the layout of his property and the surrounding land. Mr B says his garden area next to the site will be overlooked and the Council did not consider that. I understand Mr B is referring here to the section of the report which says there are no private amenity areas and ancillary outbuildings on Mr B’s land which adjoins the site. Mr B says that is wrong. The Council has apologised for any confusion caused by the planning officer’s wording of the report. As I have made clear though, I am satisfied the Council considered the impact the development would have on Mr B’s property. It is clear the Council considered it acceptable in planning terms based on the fact Mr B’s property is 30 metres away from the proposed development. I am also satisfied the report for the application made clear a window would allow vision towards Mr B’s property which would also include the land between the two buildings. Given that, and the fact overlooking of garden areas would not normally warrant refusal of a planning application, I do not intend to pursue the point further.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman