Summary: There was no fault in how the Council reached its decisions to grant planning permission for development near Mr X’s home.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly granted planning permission for development near his home because it does not comply with planning policy.
2. Mr X says the development is too large for the site, ugly and overlooks his home removing all privacy from his garden. Mr X wants the Council to compensate him for the loss of value to his home.

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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• considered a note of Mr X’s telephone conversation about the complaint with an Ombudsman investigator;
• considered planning information on the Council’s website relevant to the development; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Most development needs planning permission from the local council, which usually has eight weeks to decide a planning application. Within the eight weeks, councils must publicise the application so people may comment on development proposals.
8. Councils must consider applications on their planning merits and make decisions in line with relevant policies in their development plans, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, and not private matters such as the applicant’s behaviour or house prices. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking and traffic generation.
9. Planning policies and material planning considerations may pull in different directions, for example, supporting new housing and protecting existing residential amenities. While councils must take account of relevant policies and material planning issues, they may give competing considerations different weight. In practice, this means councils can grant planning permission for development that does not comply with all relevant planning policies.
10. Peoples’ planning and land use comments on development will be material planning considerations. Councils must take such comments into account in deciding applications, but they do not have to agree with those comments.
11. Normally, a planning officer will write a report assessing the development proposals, taking account of any competing or conflicting policies and material considerations. And, having weighed and balanced the key planning issues, the officer usually ends the report recommending either the grant or refusal of planning permission.
12. A senior council officer will consider most reports and decide whether to grant planning permission. The senior officer may give different weight to relevant policies and other material planning considerations and so accept or reject the case officer’s recommendation.
13. Normally, councils grant planning permission if they consider the development is in line with planning policy and they find no planning reason(s) of sufficient weight to justify a refusal.
14. People may seek to change a development granted planning permission. If the council believes the change will not materially affect the development, it will be a ‘non-material amendment’ (NMA) to the planning permission. Councils do not have to publicise such changes and will send the developer a letter agreeing or refusing the change.

What happened

15. Over a year, the Council received and decided several planning applications to develop a site near Mr X’s home. Mr X objected to some of the development proposals. Mr X said these proposals were out of character with the area, too large and unsightly, reduced light to his home, and overlooked his garden removing his privacy.
16. The Council both granted and refused planning permission in deciding the applications. This statement deals with the Council’s decisions to grant the two planning permissions for development taking place on the site. (The Council has approved NMA’s for both planning permissions.)
17. A Council planning officer prepared a report on each of the two applications. The reports named Mr X as a person making representations in response to it publicising the two applications. The reports summarised peoples’ representations, including the development would:

• result in a loss of privacy, daylight, sunlight, and outlook;
• be over dominant and out of keeping with the pattern of development because of its bulk, scale and design;
• be too large and so impact on openness and impact on neighbours’ existing residential amenities.

18. The two officer reports identified relevant planning policies. These policies included those about the local area, the design and scale of buildings and the impact of development on neighbouring properties.
19. The reports set out the planning case officer’s assessment of the development, including the three proposals of specific concern to Mr X.
20. For one of proposals (‘Proposal One’), the officer found it would match existing neighbouring development. The officer therefore found the proposal in line with the pattern of development. The officer also said the proposal was visually acceptable.
21. The officer’s reports also considered the impact of Proposal One on neighbouring properties. The officer said Proposal One was not in line with planning policy limiting the depth of built development. The officer said of “most significance” was a neighbouring development for “very similar” development. The officer found this meant Proposal One was not out of line with the pattern of development. The officer also said the part of Proposal One that did not comply with policy would not cause “any significant loss of openness”.
22. In assessing a second proposal (‘Proposal Two’), the officer’s report found it was in line with the local pattern of development. In support of that view, the officer gave information about other, similar, nearby developments. The officer’s report also said Proposal Two would not dominate existing buildings on the site or be visible from the street.
23. The officer said Proposal Two was set away from the site boundaries. And, in assessing its impact on nearby properties, the report considered its effect on the amenities of the nearest existing. This building was not Mr X’s home. The officer’s report found Proposal Two would not have an adverse effect on daylight and outlook from that building that would justify refusing planning permission.
24. For the third proposal (‘Proposal Three’), the officer’s report found its size and design acceptable and that it would not dominate the site. The report also said the proposal would not overdevelop the site and ‘openness’ would remain.
25. The officer report also referred to nearby properties, including Mr X’s home. The officer found the size and position of Proposal Three meant its impact on outlook, light and privacy did not justify refusing planning permission. The report also said Proposal Three would not result in overlooking as its windows faced into the development site.
26. Overall, the officer reports said the development, including Proposals One, Two and Three, met planning policies for the environment and about the design and scale of buildings. And, would not cause undue overshadowing or be overbearing to nearby buildings.
27. Different senior Council officers considered the two reports, but both decided to grant the developments planning permission.
28. In coming to the Ombudsman, Mr X:

• referred to the Proposal One not complying with planning policy;
• disagreed with the Council’s view that development like Proposals One and Two was common locally;
• said Proposal Two did badly affect light to his home and its design was unacceptable; and
• said Proposals One, Two and Three removed privacy from his home, which was now overlooked.

Consideration

29. Most peoples’ homes and they place they live are important to them. I therefore recognise the strength of Mr X’s concerns about the development near his home that he finds unacceptable. I can hold no view on whether that development is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. My role is to consider whether the Council acted with fault in reaching its decisions to grant the development planning permission. Without evidence of fault, I cannot question the Council’s planning decisions. In considering if there is evidence of fault, my focus is the points made by Mr X in coming to the Ombudsman (see paragraph 28).

Proposal One and planning policy

30. Mr X says Proposal One does not comply with the Council’s planning policy about the depth of buildings. It is not necessarily fault for a council to grant planning permission for development that does not comply with a relevant planning policy (see paragraph 9). Here, the Council acted correctly in identifying the policy as relevant to Proposal One. The policy says the Council ‘will have regard to existing established building lines’ in deciding applications. And, that planning permission ‘will not normally’ (my emphasis) be granted if proposals do not comply with points listed in the policy. The officer report also shows the Council recognised Proposal One did not comply with the policy about the depth of buildings. So, I can see no fault in how the Council approached the issue.
31. Having reached that point, the Council had to assess Proposal One against the policy (and other material planning considerations). The officer’s report shows the Council’s assessment included it ‘having regard’ to the existing building line and identifying “very similar” development nearby. The existence of the “very similar” development is evidenced by the planning information and Mr X’s photographs. The report set out why the officer did not consider non-compliance with the policy justified refusing planning permission given the ‘established pattern of development’. That was a view the Council could reach having correctly identified, and assessed Proposal Two against, the policy. I therefore find no fault here.

Other similar proposals

32. Mr X disputes that ‘similar’ development exists locally. I recognise that, with one exception, development ‘similar’ to Proposals One and Two may not be visible from Mr X’s home. And yet, the Council’s report sets out planning permissions granted for development like Proposals One and Two on the road where Mr X lives. I have viewed the information available on the Council’s website about the planning permissions the Council refers to. I have also considered Mr X’s photographs of land near his home. I find the evidence supports the Council’s view that ‘similar’ development is present locally. I therefore find no fault here by the Council.

Light and privacy

33. Mr X says Proposal Two also fails to comply with Council planning policies about scale, massing, light and outlook. The officer reports correctly identify these policies as relevant to the development.
34. The scale and massing policy concerns development that will face the rear of an existing building. Mr X’s home does not have shared rear boundary with the development site. So, this policy is not relevant in considering what, if any, impact the development has on Mr X’s home. However, the Council assessed the development against this policy, which was the correct action to take. Having done so, the Council could reach its own view on the impact of the development. And, here, it found the development would not cause undue harm to existing properties.
35. Similarly, the officer reports show the Council also assessed the development, including Proposals One, Two and Three, against its light and privacy policy. The Council could therefore reach a view, based on its planning officer’s professional judgement, of the development’s impact on light and privacy. Unfortunately for Mr X, the Council did not find any adverse impact to justify refusing planning permission. As the Council acted correctly in identifying the policies and assessing the development against them, I do not find the Council at fault.

Design

36. Mr X is also finds the design of the development, including Proposal Two, unacceptable. Again, the officer reports show the Council considered design issues and the building materials to be used for the development. So, the evidence shows the Council acted correctly in taking account of such planning issues. The Council could then reach its own view on whether it considered the design and materials were acceptable, which it did. While I recognise Mr X strongly disagrees, without evidence of fault, I cannot question the Council’s differing view.

Summary

37. The Council publicised the planning applications for the development. The officer reports show the Council took account of peoples’ representations, including those from Mr X. The Council identified relevant planning policies and assessed the development against them. The officer reports set out why the Council both found the impacts of the development acceptable; and any inconsistency with policy did not warrant a refusal of planning permission. I therefore find no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its planning decisions. Without such evidence, I cannot question the Council’s planning decisions despite Mr X’s strongly opposing views on the merits of the development (see paragraph 3).

Back to top

Final decision

38. I completed my investigation finding no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman