Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council accepted incorrect plans, ignored their objections and granted planning permission to their neighbour which causes significant harm to their amenities. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs X say the Council ignored their objections and those made by the professional consultant they engaged to act on their behalf. By granting planning permission to their neighbour the Council has caused great stress, upset and financial loss.
2. They want:
• an apology
• screening installed to protect them from glare caused by headlights
• a refund of expenses; and
• compensation for suffering and stress.

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.

(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 & Mrs X which includes:
• their complaints to the Council
• the Council’s responses
• their objections to the planning application and those made by their consultant
• the case officer report; and
• the planning decision
5. Mr & Mrs X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. The purpose of planning controls are not to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
7. 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.
8. 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.”

9. 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.
10. 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.

What happened

11. Mr & Mrs X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to reposition their vehicle crossover, a new front gate and associated landscaping work.
12. The Council publicised the application. Mr & Mrs X made several comments on the proposal either directly, or through a planning consultant they engaged to act for them. The objections included concerns about noise, fumes, glare from headlight, reduction in sightlines when entering/existing the property and incorrect plans/measurements. The Parish Council also objected.
13. Mr X mrs X also complained the plans submitted by their neighbour were wrong.
14. The Council also consulted the local highways authority (HA). The HA did not object to the proposal on the condition it is constructed according to the approved plans and the existing access is closed.
15. The case officer wrote a report on the proposal. It notes Mr & Mrs X’s objections and those made by the parish council. However, the report states:

“The County Highways Authority (CHA) have reviewed the proposal and raised no objection on highway safety, policy or capacity grounds. The CHA’s responding officer identified that the visibility splays provided would fall below that which is usually required on this type of road but as the new access would provide a significant improvement to visibility in the leading traffic direction when compared to the existing access (which is to be closed), the shortfall was considered acceptable. Third party and other comments received in respect of highway safety matters are noted, however, with no technical objection to the proposal raised by the CHA there is no basis to object in this regard. No other highway or related harm that is contrary to Policy CSP12 or Policy DP5 are identified.”

16. Mr & Mrs X say the plans are wrong and if built, the gates will not be in the place shown on the plans. The Council confirms the case officer visited and measured the site to ensure the final plans on which the decision was based was accurate. The planning decision requires the development to be built strictly according to specific numbered plans. Mr & Mrs X says the officer did not visit their property or take measurements from their side of the boundary. However, there is no statutory obligation on the Council to do so. If the built development does not accord to the approved plans Mr & Mrs X can report a breach of planning control.
17. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
18. Mr & Mrs X say the Council ignored their comments. I do not consider this to be the case. Their objections are noted and the consideration of the impact of the proposal on their property specifically referenced in the report.
19. The report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer acknowledges there will be an impact on Mr & Mrs X’s home. However, in her professional opinion the proposal would not cause “significant harm to neighbouring amenity to such a degree where a refusal could be justified or reasonable.”
20. Having visited the site, measured the property, and considered the objections and comments received, this is a professional judgement and a decision the officer is entitled to make. While Mr & Mrs X disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered their neighbour’s planning application and subsequent decision to approve it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman