Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development on land behind her property. We ended our investigation as we are unlikely to be able to decide the outcome would have been any different.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development behind her property.
2. Mrs X said the Council’s communications were poor, as residents complained they did not get the planning application notification letter and did not see the site notice.
3. Mrs X said the development will devalue her property and cause extra pressure on parking in the area, which is already difficult. Mrs X is disappointed that the highways authority did not visit the site before it made its recommendations to the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• 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

5. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mrs 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.
6. I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
9. 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.
10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
11. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.
12. For major development applications, councils must publicise the application by:
• a local newspaper advertisement; and either
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
13. For all other applications, including minor developments, councils must publicise by either:
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
14. As well as regulatory minimum requirements, councils must also produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the Council’s policy on how it will communicate with the public when it carries out its functions. It is not unusual for SCI policy to commit councils to do more than the minimum legal requirements, for example, to put up a site notice and to serve notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.

Background

15. Mrs X owns a house, next to which is some open land.
16. The landowner applied for planning permission to build a new house. The Council said that it sent notification letters and put up a site notice. Mrs X said she and other residents did not see the notice or receive the letters.
17. A planning case officer considered the application and wrote a report. 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, parking and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
18. The Council approved the application subject to planning conditions.

My findings

19. Before we investigate complaints, we need evidence to show the individual complainant was caused a significant injustice by the Council’s actions. We rely on the injustice to the complainant to justify the disruptions our investigations inevitably cause to the day-to-day work of council officers and the pressure that is placed on the public purse.
20. In this case I can see that several residents were aware of the application and did make representations before a decision was made. It is also important to note that the Council is not obliged to ensure notification letters are received, but merely that they were sent.
21. I can also see that the Council took account of parking and highway access issues. Mrs X would have prefered the highways authority officer to have visited the site, but the decision on whether a visit was necessary was a matter for the discretion of the officer.
22. Because I can see the Council was aware of residents’ concerns and took account of the relevant planning issues, it is unlikely that I would be able to conclude the outcome of the planning decision would be different. In these circumstances, it is unlikely we would be able to find the Council’s planning decision caused an injustice to Mrs X or others, so I should end my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I ended my investigation as there was no evidence to show the outcome of the planning decision would be any different.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman