Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s granting of his neighbour planning permission for a replacement house and swimming pool. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there we have not seen any evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission for his neighbour’s application for a replacement house, swimming pool, garage, and plant room.
2. He wants an independent review of the Council’s decision.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered:
• the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint
• the planning documents on its website and the minutes of the planning committee meeting.
• Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
6. 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.
7. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
8. 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.
9. 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.

My findings

10. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission in for a replacement house, garage, pool, and plant room. Mr X objected to the application as did the parish council and others. The ward councillor also objected and asked for the application to be referred to the planning committee.
11. The case officer visited the property and prepared a detailed report on the application. The report notes the previous application history of the site. It includes a summary of the objections received including those from Mr X.
12. Following an assessment of the proposal the case officer concluded the application was acceptable. They recommended the application for approval, noting why they considered the application overcame the objections received.
13. Mr X spoke to the planning committee, explaining why he objected the proposal. A representative of the parish council also spoke in objection. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.
14. The meeting minutes show the proposal was debated. The committee decided the impact on the neighbouring property was minimal and not sufficient to justify refusal. It was approved by 11 votes to 4.
15. The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against a grant of planning permission. Our role is to consider whether there was administrative fault in the way the Council considered the application.
16. Based on the evidence I have seen; I am satisfied the Council took the objections made by Mr X and others into account and considered them in accordance with Council policy and the law. Mr X and others made the planning committee fully aware of their objections to the scheme. The committee debated the proposal and decided to approve the application in the knowledge of the objections to it.
17. In the absence of any procedural fault by the Council, the Ombudsman cannot question the professional judgement of the Planning Officer. Mr X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault in the decision-making process, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman