Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s planning decisions in relation to development that is near land he owns. We ended our investigation as it is unlikely we would find significant fault or an injustice to Mr X that we could remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about development on fields that is near agricultural land he owns.
2. Mr X said that the developers are getting preferential treatment and that highway safety is affected.
3. Mr X would like the Council to revoke the permissions it has granted.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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)

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr 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.
7. I gave Mr 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

8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
10. 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.
11. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
12. Some councils issue guidance on how they would normally make their decisions and how they generally apply planning policy. The guidance is sometimes found in the local plan itself or issued in separate supplementary planning documents.
13. Planning guidance and policy should not be treated as if it creates a binding rule that must be followed. Councils must take account of their policy along with other material planning considerations.
14. Amongst other things, guidance will often set out separation distances between dwellings to protect amenities, such as overshadowing and loss of privacy.
15. Although guidance can set different limits, councils normally allow 21 metres between directly facing habitable rooms (such as bedrooms, living and dining rooms) or 12 metres between habitable rooms and blank elevations or elevations that contain only non-habitable room windows (such as bathrooms, kitchens and utility rooms). An ‘elevation’ is the face or view of it from one side shown in a plan.
16. It is possible to seek formal confirmation from councils that an existing or proposed development or use of land is lawful and so needs no planning permission. If the Council accepts the evidence provided, it can issue a certificate of lawful use to the applicant.
17. This may happen where:
• the Council has already granted planning permission for the use or development;
• a development is ‘permitted development’ and so deemed acceptable because it complies with limits in regulations;
• the development was unlawful, but the time limit for enforcement actions has now passed.

Background

18. Mr X has complained about several planning decisions the Council has made, including:
• a certificate of lawful use for an access road;
• replacement of buildings and new buildings used for outdoor recreation purposes;
• amendments to plans for new houses.
19. Mr X lives about 2500 metres away from the site. He told me that his son lives closer to the site. The nearest neighbouring dwelling is about 100 metres from the new houses.
20. In response to an earlier draft of this decision, Mr X said:
• The Council has already admitted technical errors;
• There is evidence of fraud and collusion in the way the Council has dealt with planning matters on the site;

My findings

21. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we need evidence to show it is likely there was fault in the decision-making process that caused the individual complainant 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.
22. Our remedies are aimed at resolving the direct impact development has had on an individual’s amenities, such as noise, loss of privacy and light. It is unlikely that further investigation will find a significant injustice to Mr X. This is because Mr X and his son live too far away from the site.
23. The lack of a significant injustice is the main reason why I should end my investigation, but there are other factors I have taken account of. These are as follows:
• Mr X wants the Council to revoke its decisions, but this is not a remedy we would normally recommend. Only the court has the power to quash a decision once it is made.
• The highway access was confirmed as lawful several years ago. Since then, when applications for other developments and uses have been submitted, the Highways Authority was consulted but did not object. It is unlikely that any investigation by us could lead to a finding that the access is unlawful or unsafe.
• Most of the issues Mr X complained about happened well before our 12-month time limit. Before continuing any investigation, we would need to be satisfied Mr X could not reasonably have complained to us sooner. I have seen nothing in Mr X’s submissions that suggests it is likely we would exercise discretion to look into his late complaints.
• We are not a planning appeal body, but instead focus on the process by which decisions were made. I have looked at the documents, including case officer reports for the main planning decisions and the Council took account of application plans, comments from the public and consultees, policies and guidance considered relevant and the planning history of the site before it made its decisions. Because of this, it is unlikely I would find evidence of significant fault in the decision-making process.
• Mr X alleges collusion and fraud. These are allegation of crimes and they are for the police to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I ended my investigation as it is unlikely to result in a finding of significant fault or an injustice to the complainant I could remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman