Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application to turn a nearby agricultural building into holiday accommodation. Mr X says it will impact onto the amenities enjoyed by his holiday home. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council approved a planning application to turn an agricultural building next to his holiday home into holiday accommodation. Mr X says:
• The officer misrepresented the nature of the site when describing it in the planning report as it is mainly for used for second homes rather than holiday lets.
• The planning permission fails to follow the Council’s supplementary planning policy needing a separation distance of 20 metres between properties.
• The officer failed to properly assess the impact onto his amenities due to a proposed window overlooking his home and a decking area and hot tub to the new accommodation.
2. Mr X says this will have a detrimental impact onto his privacy, amenity and value of his holiday 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. 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 have read the papers submitted by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided. I have explained my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and invited comments.

Back to top

What I found

Planning requirements

6. The law says councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
7. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
8. A council must be able to show it has considered the material planning considerations that are engaged by the planning process. Evidence is usually found in the case officer’s report. The records should show what considerations were taken into account and what the council made of them.
9. Normally, a case officer will prepare a report, assessing the application against relevant local plan policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.

What happened

10. Mr X owns a holiday home on a small site in a rural location. The site owner applied to convert an agricultural building next to Mr X’s holiday home into two units to let as holiday accommodation. The Council advertised the application and Mr X sent in objections. The objections included Mr X’s concerns about a large window facing his holiday home, loss of privacy and noise from a proposed decking area and hot tub outside the accommodation.
11. The planning case officer carried out a site visit. The Council confirms the officer looked at the relationship between all the holiday homes on the site, not just that between the application site and Mr X’s holiday home. It says the nature of the site land use was understood when it decided the application. The site is authorised for holiday use and controlled by a licence condition restricting occupation to 10 months of the year.
12. The officer prepared a planning report on the proposal which included a description of the site and proposed development. It referred to relevant council policies. The Council says this included the supplementary planning policy referred to by Mr X although it is design guidance rather than policy. The Council says it has no policy requirement for residential development to have a separation distance of 20 metres. The Council only requires 20 metres when buildings are back to back. This is not the relationship at the holiday site where the two units are side by side.
13. The planning report contained a summary of representations made including Mr X’s concerns. The report looked at the impact of the new accommodation on the amenities of the other holiday homes including Mr X’s holiday home. The officer determined that the proposed accommodation would not lead to undue overlooking ‘given the constraints of the site where overlooking already exists.’
14. The planning report looked at the impact of the decking area and hot tub onto other holiday homes. But considered while there may be some noise from its use, it would be the responsibility of users and site management to resolve any issues if needed. The officer considered the proposal acceptable and recommended approving the application.
15. The officer’s report, the application and other documents were considered by a senior officer, who approved the application subject to planning conditions.
16. The Council says it fully assessed the impact onto Mr X’s privacy and the level of amenity Mr X’s holiday home has is consistent with that of most other holiday homes located on the site. The site is a holiday park and so has no defined garden areas. It considers the open plan nature means views are possible into the private areas of the units from publicly accessible locations on the site.
17. The Council confirms the view of the decking area of the new accommodation is from a side bedroom window at Mr X’s holiday home. It says Mr X’s main views remain unchanged and there is no direct overlooking of his lounge and dining area.

My assessment

18. I am aware Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the holiday accommodation. However, before it made its decision, the evidence I have seen shows the Council considered the application, the impact it would have on Mr X’s amenities and other material planning issues such as noise and overlooking. There are therefore no grounds for me to criticise the merits of the Council’s decision. The Council followed the process we would expect and so I find no administrative fault.
19. Mr X does not agree with the Council’s description of the use of the site in the planning application. The Council has explained how it reached its conclusion to describe it as a holiday site due to the conditions of its licence for occupation. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make, and I see no evidence to suggest it was wrong to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I am complete my investigation as there was no evidence of fault in the process by which the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman