Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a planning application for development next to the complainant’s home. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault causing injustice to the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about planning permission granted by the Council for development next to his home. He says his home will be overlooked and its value reduced as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and information about the planning application on the Council’s website. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7. The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. It constitutes guidance in drawing up plans and is a material consideration in determining applications.
8. 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.
9. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents provide guidance on how other planning policies are interpreted. They are material planning considerations when determining an application.
10. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Summary of events

11. The Council received an application for development at a house next to Mr B’s home. It had to consider the application on its planning merits and grant planning permission if there were no valid grounds for refusal. The Council could not take account of any perceived loss of value of neighbouring houses as this is not a material planning consideration.
12. The Council considered the impact of a proposed rooflight on Mr B’s home. Because this is at least 1.7 metres above floor level, it is not considered to result in overlooking as it above normal eye level.
13. The Council decided to grant planning permission. It imposed a condition to ensure the rooflight facing Mr B’s home is not less than 1.7 metres above floor level.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is nothing to suggest fault in how the Council considered the planning application. Further, the development will not result in overlooking of Mr B’s home and the Council could take into account any perceived loss of value.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman