Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decisions relating to development on her neighbour’s land. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s planning decisions relating to her neighbour’s development.
2. Mrs X says that because of these decisions, her amenities, including outlook, privacy and noise disturbance, are all adversely affected.

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

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. I took account of the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in 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 from a property;
• 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. Not all development requires planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’. Permitted development rights may be removed or restricted by planning condition or a direction order for the area.
12. Not all planning decisions are made by council planning committees. Councils may delegate decisions to planning officers to make some decisions, restricted to circumstances set out in delegation schemes. Delegation schemes are found in a council’s constitution.
13. Councils have a range of options for formal planning enforcement action available to them, including:
• Planning Contravention Notices – to require information from the owner or occupier of land and provide an opportunity to rectify the alleged breach;
• Planning Enforcement Notices – where there is evidence of a breach, to identify it and require action to remedy it;
• Stop Notices - to prohibit activities without further delay where it is essential to safeguard the public;
• Breach of Condition Notices – to require compliance with the terms of planning conditions already determined necessary for approval of the development;
• Injunctions – by application to the High Court or County Court, the council may seek an order to restrain an actual or expected breach of planning control.
14. However, as planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
15. Council planning officers do not normally visit neighbouring properties when considering planning applications but may do so if invited. Whether to accept such an invitation is a matter for the individual officer’s discretion: there is no power or duty to do so. Councils do have the power to enter neighbouring land if necessary to investigate breaches of planning control.

Background

16. Mrs X’s neighbour began building an outbuilding and decking in their garden, close to the boundary with Mrs X’s home. No planning approval had been granted for the development.
17. A complaint was made to the Council’s planning enforcement officers. Mrs X said a planning enforcement officer visited the site and said that the neighbour should submit planning applications for the work and for increasing the height of the boundary wall.
18. The neighbour continued building work but submitted a planning application.
19. A local Member of the Council referred the application to the Council’s planning committee. The planning application was considered by a planning case officer, who wrote reports for the committee. The case officer’s reports included:
• descriptions of the proposals and site;
• summaries of planning history considered relevant;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• summaries of planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendations to approve the applications, subject to planning conditions.
20. The committee approved the planning applications. Mrs X said that, while the Council may have followed the planning process, she feels it has done the minimum possible. She believes that if it had done more it might have reached a different conclusion. Mrs X also said:
• the case officer should have visited her home to view the development from her side of the boundary; and
• the Council failed to require correction of application plans, which did not show the extension built on her home.

My findings

21. We are not a planning appeal body and so do not comment on the planning judgements that are made unless there was fault in the decision making process. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. When we do find fault in the decision making process, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant.
22. In this case, I see no evidence of fault in the decision making process. Before it made its decision, the Council took account of:
• the application plans;
• the development, which was substantially complete;
• comments from the public and other consultees;
• planning policy and guidance;
• the recommendations of the planning case officer.
23. This is the decision making process we expect and so I find no fault in the way the decision was made.
24. Mrs X also complained about the accuracy of the plans and the failure of the case officer to view the development from her home.
25. Application plans must show the location of the development site and other plans necessary to determine the application. Councils usually require plans to show both existing and proposed development inside the area edged in red – i.e. the development site itself. Councils do not usually require up to date survey plans outside the site – the impact on neighbouring buildings is usually considered during site visits or inspection of previously approved plans.
26. It was not fault for the Council to take account of a plan which did not show Mrs X’s extension.
27. It was not fault for the case officer not to visit Mrs X’s home, as there is no obligation to do so.
28. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement decision. She believes that if the Council had acted differently, the outcome might have been different.
29. I did not investigate the Council’s enforcement decision, because it was superseded by the planning application decisions that followed it. In any event, I have seen no evidence to suggest fault in the way this decision was made.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I completed my investigation as there was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman