Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application. We stopped our investigation because there is no evidence to show Mr X was caused a significant injustice by the development or that the outcome of the planning decision would have have been different.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application.
2. Mr X said he and other residents were put to a great deal of trouble, distress and inconvenience throughout the planning process. Mr X would like the Council to revoke its decision.

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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• 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 read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. I gave the Council and Mr X an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
10. Some councils issue guidance on how they would normally make their decisions and how they generally apply planning policy. The guidance is sometimes found in the local plan itself or issued in separate supplementary planning documents.
11. Planning guidance and policy should not be treated as if it creates a binding rule that must be followed. Councils must take account of their policy along with other material planning considerations.
12. Amongst other things, guidance will often set out separation distances between dwellings to protect against overshadowing and loss of privacy.
13. Although guidance can set different limits, councils normally allow 21 metres between directly facing habitable rooms (such as bedrooms, living and dining rooms) or 12 metres between habitable rooms and blank elevations or elevations that contain only non-habitable room windows (such as bathrooms, kitchens and utility rooms). An ‘elevation’ is the face or view of it from one side shown in a plan.
14. Only the high court can quash a planning decision. The Ombudsman can recommend a remedy if there is evidence to show a significant injustice was caused by fault on the part of the Council. Occasionally, we might ask a council to consider using its powers to revoke a planning decision, but whether to do so or not is a judgement for the Council to make as a local planning authority.

What happened

15. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application to extend his home. The application was publicised, and comments were invited. Mr X objected to the application, as did his Parish Council. The application was considered by a planning case officer.
16. The case officer’s report included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of planning history the Council considered to be relevant;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including design, the planning ‘fall-back’ position, and the impact on residential amenity; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
17. The Council’s planning committee approved the application subject to the recommended conditions.
18. The nearest habitable room window in Mr X’s home is about 18 metres away from where the approved development will be built, at an angle of about 50 degrees. The land is rising slightly, which increases the impact the development will have on Mr X, but details of the site and the relationship with its surroundings were considered in the case officer’s report.

My findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. Our powers allow us to investigate complaints if we can show that the alleged fault caused a significant injustice to the individual complainant. It is the injustice to the individual that justifies the cost of our investigation to the public and disruption we inevitably cause to the day-to-day work of the Council and its officers.
20. Mr X would like the Council to revoke its decision. We cannot require councils to revoke planning decisions.
21. The development will be beyond the spatial limits councils normally require to protect residential amenities.
22. For these reasons, even if further investigation was to find fault in the way the decision was made, we would not be able to:
• provide the remedy Mr X has asked for;
• show the outcome would have been different;
• find evidence of a significant injustice; or
• recommend a meaningful remedy.
23. I have ended my investigation because I am unlikely to reach a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have ended my investigation because it was unlikely to lead to a meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman