Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for a park and share opposite his property. He said the Council did not consider the impact and his privacy will be affected. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council did not properly consider the impact of the ‘park and share’ facility approved under an outline and reserved matters application. He says the raised level of the area causes overlooking and loss of privacy to his back garden and to the rear of his property. He is also concerned it may affect the security of his property and will devalue his home. Mr X would like the Council to apologise and ensure the park and share is built in accordance with the original outline plans. Alternatively, he would like the Council to pay for additional boundary treatments to protect his privacy and security and compensate him for loss of value to his property.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated how the Council considered the reserved matters application. I have not investigated how the Council considered the earlier outline application. I have explained the reasons for this in paragraphs 18-20

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 discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on my draft decision. I considered the Council’s comments. Mr X did not comment.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council considered an outline planning application for a housing development near Mr X’s home in 2017. This included a park and share facility for up to 100 cars. Mr X objected on the grounds that the park and share facility would cause loss of privacy to his home due to overlooking, would be unsightly, would cause anti social behaviour and could cause flooding from surface water run off.
7. The Council approved the outline plan. Its report recommending approval considered that the indicative layout including the park and share, did not have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity of adjoining occupiers in respect of overlooking or overbearing. The Council said a section 106 agreement for a financial contribution towards the future maintenance of the site would address the issues regarding management of the park and share. The Council attached a condition requiring approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site, which must be obtained before the development was commenced. A further condition required details of a sustainable urban drainage system to prevent flooding. The Council required the applicant to make a reserved matters application concerning these details and conditions.
8. The developer made the reserved matters planning application in 2019 for the park and share. The developer changed the layout of the facility, as the orientation of the parking spaces changed to face Mr X’s property. The submitted landscaping plan showed trees and hedging to the front of the facility to screen the car park. The Council consulted residents and other relevant consultees.
9. Mr X objected about loss of privacy, overlooking, the risk to his security from users of the park and share and potential anti social behaviour from people using the facility. He also objected about potential flooding or drainage problems.
10. The Council considered the reserved matters application and approved the plan. The Council’s report recommending approval noted that regarding landscaping it had negotiated additional planting of trees to the sides and front of the park and share facility. The Council confirmed the section 106 agreement required access and maintenance of the facility to be provided either by the developer or through a contribution by adoption by the local authority. The report confirmed the Council had agreed to reduce by half the original proposed number of parking spaces but with the potential to increase these. The report noted it was satisfied with the surface water strategy and drainage plan submitted.
11. When the developer started to build the development Mr X complained the surface level was higher than it should be according to the approved plan. He said that his privacy and security would be affected.
12. The Council’s surveyor has checked the levels of the built development. It found some slight variations but did not find these were significant. It therefore considered that the development has been built according to the approved plan.

Analysis

13. The reserved matters application did not specifically refer to overlooking or loss of privacy to Mr X. However, the Council had considered the potential loss of residential amenity in the outline application, but did not consider the impact of the facility was significant. The Council had also considered management of the site and drainage at outline stage.
14. I find the Council considered the reserved matters application as it considered relevant factors and details following the outline approval. Its report confirms it had negotiated improvements to the landscaping of the boundary of the park and share which could reduce overlooking and improve the appearance of the development. I have not found fault in the way the decision was made. Therefore, as I explained in paragraph 3, I cannot question the merits of the decision.
15. Mr X states the developer had promised not to build the level of the car park more than 100mm higher than the original ground level. However, I have not seen evidence the developer stated this to Mr X or the Council. The plans the developer submitted to the Council at the reserved matters stage showed the current ground levels and the proposed levels. The plan did increase the ground levels, particularly at the rear of the car park. I have not found fault here.
16. The Council carried out an enforcement investigation to see if the development was not built according to the approved plan, but it has not found an error by the developer.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have not found fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

18. I have not investigated the Council’s consideration of the outline planning application because this part of the complaint is late. The Council’s decision was made in 2017 and Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman was made in 2020.
19. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26B, as amended).
20. I do not consider there are good reasons to investigate this late complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman