Summary: Mr E complained the Council provided incorrect information to the planning committee about the amount of overlooking into his house. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr E complained the Council provided incorrect information to the members of the planning committee about the amount of overlooking into his house. He says a different decision about whether to approve the planning application might have been made if the Council had provided committee members with the correct information.
2. Mr E says if the development is constructed as proposed, there will be a loss of privacy to the back of his house. He also says it will cost money to reduce the amount of overlooking.

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 considered information Mr E submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mr E 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

Planning permission

7. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives local authorities the power to decide if planning applications should be approved, refused, or approved subject to planning conditions.
8. Councils must consider applications on their planning merits and make decisions in line with relevant policies in their development plans unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, and not private matters such as the applicant’s behaviour or house prices. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, previous appeal decisions, layout and density of the building, and traffic generation.
9. Planning policies and material planning considerations may pull in different directions, for example, supporting new housing and protecting existing residential amenities. While councils must take account of relevant policies and material planning issues, they may give competing considerations different weight. In practice, this means councils may grant planning permission for developments that do not comply with all relevant planning policies.

What happened

10. The Council received a planning application for a new commercial and residential development with balconies near to where Mr E lives.
11. Mr E objected to the application. He said there would be overlooking into his house and a loss of privacy.
12. The planning officer prepared a report for the planning committee to decide on whether to approve the application. The report sets out the relevant planning history, planning policies, consultation responses and Mr E’s further objections.
13. The planning officer notes in her report the development will result in additional overlooking into Mr E’s house because of the balconies. However, she concluded there will not be unacceptable impact on Mr E’s privacy and any views towards his house will be restricted.
14. During the committee meeting, the planning officer explained the balconies will be positioned not to give direct views over Mr E’s garden.
15. When a committee member asked a question about whether there will be overlooking, the planning officer referred to the site plan. She explained the side of the balcony will be enclosed by a wall and so if someone stands on the balcony, they will not be getting a view into Mr E’s windows.
16. The committee went on to approve the planning application, subject to conditions.
17. Mr E complained to the Council. He said the planning officer gave committee members the impression there will be no overlooking from the balconies. He also said the committee member that asked about overlooking voted in favour of the application.
18. The Council responded to Mr E’s complaint. It said the planning officer outlined the design of the balconies to committee members. It said people standing on the balcony of the new development will be able to view his house, but at such an angle that any impact on his privacy will be minimal. Finally, it said committee members are required to read the planning officer’s report before the committee.
19. Mr E wrote to the Council and reiterated that his main complaint was the planning officer provided incorrect information to committee members. He said the planning officer failed to mention that someone standing on the balcony will be able to see into his house and garden.
20. The Council issued its final response to Mr E’s complaint. It said the planning officer explained to committee members the orientation of the balconies means the view out from them will be in a direction not facing directly onto his house. It also said the planning officer made it clear there will be some overlooking. However, she formed a professional opinion that the measures put forward by the developer will reduce the impact on his privacy.
21. Mr E remain dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

22. The Ombudsman, when dealing with complaints about the granting of planning permission, cannot consider whether the decision was right or wrong. It is the role of the planning system, not the Ombudsman, to decide on an application. My role is to determine whether there has been administrative fault in the way the decision was made.
23. Mr E’s main concern is the planning officer failed to explain if someone is standing on the balcony, it will be possible to see into his windows from the front of the balcony. He is also concerned the planning officer said the position of the balconies means there will be no direct views over his garden. He says if someone is standing on the balcony, they will be able to see into his garden and house.
24. I have reviewed a video of the committee meeting. The planning officer was not incorrect to say there will no direct views over his garden or that if someone stands on the balcony, they will not get a view into his windows. This is because the orientation of the balconies means the view from them will not face directly onto Mr E’s house.
25. I appreciate Mr E’s view that the planning officer could have provided more clarity and explained that someone will be able to see into his house and garden depending on where they stand on the balcony. However, the planning officer’s presentation was not the only information committee members had to consider before deciding on whether to grant planning permission. They had a copy of the planning officer’s report which made it clear there will be overlooking, but it will not be unreasonable because of the orientation and design of the balconies. I appreciate Mr E disagrees with this view, but it is clear the planning officer considered the impact of the development on his amenity.
26. The committee members also had copies of the site plans and a copy of Mr E’s detailed objections. I am therefore satisfied the committee had copies of all relevant information before it came to its own view that the application was acceptable in planning terms.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr E’s complaint. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman