Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve planning permission at a site it owns. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve planning permission at a site it owns (the Site). They said the Council provided incorrect information to its planning committee about the proximity of the building on the Site to their home.
2. Mr and Mrs X said that this had resulted in the breach of their privacy as open windows from the building look directly into their home. In addition, there were more cars parking on the Site than set out in the initial plans.

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

• I read the complaint correspondence between the Mr and Mrs X and the Council.
• I watched the Council’s planning committee discussions.
• I read the planning documents including the officers report and site plans.
• I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
1. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. The Council’s consideration of the key material issues are contained within the case officer’s report. This is written to advise the decision-making body or individual.
8. When they approve planning applications, councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards. The conditions are included with the decision to approve the application. The decision may also include ‘informatives’. Informatives are not binding, but provide useful information that might be relevant to the development, such as potential need to get building regulation consent or a party wall agreement.
9. Depending on the nature of the planning application, it may be considered by the Council’s planning committee. The public may be allowed to attend these meetings to voice any objections to the application. The Council’s guidance on these meetings states those attending meetings cannot show photographs because there is not the opportunity to properly consider new information within the committee meeting.

Background

10. More than a decade ago, the Council approved temporary planning permission for the construction of temporary buildings at the Site. The buildings were to provide office space for Council staff and a partner contractor. The approved plans show the Site had parking for a number of vehicles.
11. The plans were approved with the conditions the Council:
1. Remove the temporary buildings within three years.
2. Fit obscured glass to all widows at first floor level on north, south and east elevations to protect privacy of adjoining residential properties.
12. The Council said it had a continued need for the office space. It applied to vary the planning permission on three occasions to extend the date the temporary buildings needed removing by. These applications were approved by the Council’s planning [either committee or planning officers using delegated powers].
13. Mr and Mrs X moved into a house next to the Site after these decisions were made.

The Council’s application and case officers report

14. The most recent planning permission expired in 2020, but the Council said it still needed to use the site and temporary buildings. The Council made a further application to extend the permission for the temporary buildings until July 2022.
15. The Case Officer’s report included:
• A description of the proposal and site;
• A summary of relevant planning history;
• Comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• Relevant planning policy and guidance;
• An appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and highway safety; and
• The officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
16. The report said the Council had received a number of objections to the planning proposal. It addressed the main material objections relevant to the Site. That included:
• the height and structure of the buildings;
• loss of privacy and light;
• the impact to trees; and
• traffic and highway safety issues.
17. The report said the temporary building was sited close to the boundaries of properties on Mr and Mrs X’s road. It said as the structure was primarily single storey, it would not have a detrimental impact to the properties through loss of outlook, privacy, or light. It stated the first-floor element of the building was located far enough away from habitable windows of the properties to not affect amenities.
18. The report stated that an existing condition for first floor windows to be fitted with obscured glass had not been complied with and instead used privacy film. It said that if planning permission were approved, it would require a condition to specify the type of privacy film used.
19. The case officer’s report said the Site would retain parking for vehicles. It said the Council had received objections about inconsiderate parking, and fumes and emissions. It proposed an informative to ensure cars parked with exhaust pipes directed away from Mr and Mrs X’s property.
20. The applicant provided a map showing the location of the Site. That map incorrectly showed the footprint of Mr and Mrs X’s house and its proximity to the temporary buildings.

The Council’s planning committee

21. The Council considered the most recent planning application. The Chair of the committee commented on the location plan supplied and stated they had visited the Site. The Chair told the committee the location plan did not accurately represent the Site and the proximity between Mr and Mrs X’s house and the temporary building.
22. Mr X also attend the meeting and put forward his objections in person. These included the use of the building and parking of vehicles on the Site. Mr X could not show photographs of the house and Site in the meeting. However, the Chair of the meeting confirmed the committee had seen them.
23. Following consideration of the application, the Council agreed to extend the time period the temporary buildings could remain in place for another two years. It imposed a condition in respect to windows on the buildings and condition for the applicant to submit details of how to protect neighbouring properties privacy to the Council. In addition, it included a non-binding informative about how cars should park.

My findings

24. When considering complaints about planning applications, we look for evidence a council has followed a proper process before making its decision. We expect to see evidence a council has identified the main material planning considerations and properly considered them. The weight an officer gives to those considerations is a matter for their judgement and we will not criticise unless there is clear evidence of fault that causes a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
25. The location plan included in the case officers report did not accurately reflect the proximity of the temporary buildings to Mr and Mrs X’s house. However, the case officer’s report stated the temporary building was sited near the boundaries of residential properties on the road Mr and Mrs X lived. The Chair of the committee also commented on the proximity of the Site. Mr and Mrs X also provided photographic evidence alongside their written objections.
26. Therefore, the Council had sufficient information about the proximity of Mr and Mrs X’s house to the Site when making its decision. It is clear to me that the Council knew where Mr and Mrs X’s house was in relation to the buildings on the site. The Council was not at fault.
27. The case officer’s report considered the main material considerations about the development. The key objection raised by Mr and Mrs X was about loss of privacy caused by the proximity of the buildings and windows. The report said the temporary structures did not cause a significant loss of privacy. The Council considered this objection further before agreeing to grant planning permission. It included a condition about the specification of privacy film and for the applicant to provide details of how it would protect the privacy of neighboring properties. I am satisfied the Council considered the objections about loss of privacy. The Council was not at fault.
28. Mr X also objected to cars parking alongside their boundary wall despite the layout plan not including parking spaces in that location. The Council decided the site had adequate parking. How the site is actually used, the number of cars that enter the site and where they park is not a planning matter, but a land management issue. However, the planning committee considered those objections and included an informative about the direction cars should park in. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the objections put forward by Mr X. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

29. There was no fault in how the Council agreed planning permission therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman