Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to follow the correct process before granting planning permission for demolition and replacement of a bungalow close to his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Councils actions. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to follow the correct planning process when it granted planning permission for demolition and replacement of an existing property next to his home. He says:
• The Council should have agreed to the Parish Council’s request to refer the case to the planning committee
• The Council failed to uphold its own planning policy
• The planning officer made false statements on the application
• The Council failed to respond to his complaints within the timescales set out in its complaint procedure

2. Mr X wants the planning permission revoked. And any new application his neighbour may make should be decided by the planning committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• The information provided by Mr X
• Copies of Mr X’s complaints and the Council’s responses
• Information about the planning application available on the Council’s website: and
• The Council’s planning policies.

Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to demolish the property on a site close to Mr X’s home and replace it with a new property and outbuilding.
6. The Council publicised the application. Mr X objected to the application. His objections include:
• The distance between the proposed property and his home is below the Council recommended minimum
• There are inconsistencies in the plans
• The parish council has been misled by the drawings
• Trees and shrubs may not obstruct views of neighbouring properties. When they lowered (as Mr X states he will insist they are), they will not provide necessary screening
• It is impossible to achieve the required distance from the new build and existing properties for drainage
• The new property will obstruct public views
7. The parish council did not support the application. It says the visual impact of the new property will be harmful to views for the public. And concerns about the bulk of the proposed property.
8. The highways department, the Council’s Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty unit, and Historic England did not make any objections to the proposal.
9. The parish council asked for the application to be referred to the Council’s planning committee for a decision.
10. The case officer wrote a report on the scheme. This included a summary of Mr X’s objections.
11. The officer noted the distances between the proposed property and Mr X’s home is less than the recommended distance of 25 metres. However, the officer considered this was not a reason to refuse the application because of:
• the nature of the topography
• the opposing levels of the properties
• the intervening driveway and boundary hedging; and
• the angled arrangement of the proposal
12. The report also notes the proposed building is larger than the existing bungalow. It accepted this will impact the views enjoyed by neighbouring properties. However, it also correctly noted that loss of a private view is not a material planning consideration.
13. The Council’s relevant planning policies are also considered in the case officer report. It confirms the site is adjacent to a conservation area. Therefore, according to national and local planning policies, the Council must give special consideration to preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the area.
14. The site is an existing developed site. The application is for demolition of the existing property and replacement. The case officer confirms he has visited the site and viewed it from several points around the village including the shared driveway and the harbour. His opinion was that the proposal would not harm the setting of the designated area.
15. The parish council objected to the initial proposal. Following the receipt of revised plans, it asked for the application to be referred to the committee. However, the report notes the local ward member agreed to the application being dealt with under delegated authority.
16. The case officer recommended approval. The senior officer agreed, and the application was approved with several conditions.

Assessment

17. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies, unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
18. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”. The NPPF says this presumption means, when deciding planning applications:

“where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless…any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in [the NPPF] taken as a whole.”

19. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
20. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.
21. The Council’s policy says it will support replacement homes providing the proposals meet certain criteria. The policy restricts the size of replacement properties. They must equal the volume of the existing property plus an allowance for permitted development. In this case the Council has confirmed the policy applies to sites outside the village’s settlement boundaries. But the site in this case is not outside the village settlement boundary. It has decided therefore the correct policy in this case is that relating to good design.
22. There is no specific reference to the Council’s policy relating to replacement properties applying to site outside village settlement boundaries. Mr X states the Council has failed to correctly apply this policy. Because of this he says it has incorrectly approved a proposal which will adversely impact his enjoyment of his property.
23. However, the planning officer’s report considers the relationship between the proposal and Mr X’s existing property and the approved application for his own and replacement property. It notes the distance between the properties is between 18 and 21 metres. And while acknowledging Mr X’s objections the officer concluded the design and layout provide effective mitigation and would not prevent a good standard of amenity on neighbouring properties. The officer also decided the application respects the street scene and wider AONB. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
24. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to adjudicate on disputed points of law and/or policy. The Council has referred to the relevant policies and explained how it has applied them in this case. The case officer report considers his objections in some detail and explains why it considers the application overcomes these.
25. Mr X wants his neighbour’s planning permission revoked and any new application decided by the planning committee. This is not something the Ombudsman ca achieve for him.
26. Turning to Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s failure to follow the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. We will not look usually at the way a complaint has been considered in isolation. We consider both the handling of the complaint and the substance of the original complaint. If we consider that the original complaint is not something that we would investigate then we will not usually investigate the complaint about the complaints process. In this case I do not intend to investigate this point. I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant injustice because of failings in the complaints process alone, to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considers the planning application. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman