Summary: We do not have grounds to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new house. This is because there is insufficient sign of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a replacement house next to his property. In particular Mr B complained that:

• the Council had not properly explained how it reached its decision;

• the Council did not take proper account of the impact on his amenity;

• the Council referred to the new development exploiting the view from the site, but did not consider the loss of view from his property; and

• there were errors in the planning officer’s description of his property in the officer’s report on the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B’s representative provided with his complaint and the representative’s comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of the Council’s correspondence with Mr B concerning his complaint and documents on its website about the planning application in question.

What happened

5. Mr B’s next-door neighbour submitted a planning application to demolish the existing single storey bungalow on site and replace it with a larger, two-storey house.
6. Mr B, members of his family and other local residents made representations to the Council objecting to various aspects of the original proposal and the subsequently revised plans for the new house. Mr B’s objections related in particular to the loss of view and sunlight due to the height of the new roof, over-development of the site and local area, and the impact of the construction on local traffic and parking.
7. However the Council went on to grant conditional planning approval for the proposal. Mr B then complained to the Council about the way it decided the application. Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s responses to his complaint and so brought his case to us.

Planning background

8. The role of local planning authorities is to balance the right of a landowner to do what they want to with their land and property against the public and private interests of those who own and enjoy land that may be affected by development.
9. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the authority’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
10. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct or reduction in the value of a property.
11. Material considerations include issues such as overshadowing, design, building materials, highway safety and noise. Loss of outlook is a material planning consideration, but loss of view is not. When considering loss of outlook, the authority will consider whether the development would have an adverse overbearing effect.
12. Provided regard is had to all relevant material considerations, it is for the decision maker to decide what weight is to be given to any of the considerations in each case.

Analysis

13. When considering complaints about planning decisions, we do not act as an appeal body and so we do not re-examine the merits of the decision the Council has reached. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. Unless we see sign of fault in the process which may have affected the decision-making, we may not criticise the Council’s professional judgement on a planning matter.
14. But having considered all the information provided in Mr B’s case, I am not convinced that there is sign of substantive fault by the Council to justify starting an investigation of his complaint.
15. First, Mr B was unhappy with the way the Council made its decision about his neighbour’s application as he felt the case should have gone to its planning committee to determine.
16. However I note that the Council’s Constitution delegates decisions about householder planning applications to planning officers, except where a Ward Councillor or the local town or parish council asks for a referral to the planning committee. I understand there was no referral in this case. As a result I do not see we could fault the Council because the decision was made by planning officers under delegated authority.
17. Mr B was also unhappy with the planning officer’s report, which set out the Council’s views about the application, as he felt it was flawed because of errors. In particular Mr B said the report had wrongly described his property as extended, and incorrectly referred to the view from his lounge window rather than from his conservatory.
18. But I do not see these were significant factual errors which we could say had invalidated or undermined the report’s conclusions and the Council’s decision.
19. Mr B also felt the report and the Council had not properly assessed or understood the impact the new development would have on his amenity.
20. However from the information provided my view is that the report gave a suitable description of the planning site and the relationship with neighbouring properties. I also note the report specifically considered the impact on Mr B’s amenity and that of the other immediate neighbours. I consider the Council’s attention to this matter was also reflected in the conditions attached to the planning consent, for instance, the requirement for a Construction Method Statement to regulate the construction process and a restriction on any further alterations or enlargements of the building without planning permission.
21. In addition I note that planning officers visited the planning site and Mr B’s property on two occasions, and I have seen the numerous photographs they took at the time showing the relationship between the site and neighbouring properties, including the view from Mr B’s conservatory. In the circumstances I see no reason to suggest that planning officers did not have a proper understanding of the site and the impact on Mr B’s amenity.
22. Mr B also felt the Council had unreasonably recognised the benefit his neighbour would gain from the enhanced views from the new house, while discounting the los of view he would suffer as a result of the new building.
23. But I am not convinced there is a matter of fault we can pursue in this respect. In particular I consider the Council is correct in pointing out that loss of view is not a material planning consideration which it could take into account in its decision-making. In addition I do not see the Council gave any significant weight to the view Mr B’s neighbour would gain, in deciding the application.
24. In addition I consider the planning officer’s report on the application did take appropriate account of material planning considerations. These included relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council’s Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan for the area, as well as the character of the area, residential amenity, highway safety and representations from local residents. It also appears to me that the report provides a suitable explanation of the Council’s reasons for finding the proposed development acceptable in planning terms.
25. At the end of the day it was the job of Council officers to balance the conflicting interests, weigh up the relevant planning considerations and reach a decision about the application. But as there is no sign of substantive fault in the way the Council went about this process in Mr B’s neighbour’s case, I have concluded that we do not have grounds to investigate Mr B’s complaint.

Final decision

26. We do not have grounds to investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application for a new house. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the Council considered and decided the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman