Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the property next to his parent’s home. We do not intend to investigate this complaint as further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation or lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains on behalf of his parents, who I shall call Mr & Mrs Y.
2. Mr X complains about the Council’s consideration and granting of planning permissions for a property next to Mr & Mrs Y’s home. He says the Council:
• approved a planning application which removed parking provision for as new home without including parking provision in the approved plans
• incorrectly assessed the impact of a planning application on Mr & Mrs Y’s home because the location of their home was incorrect on the plans
• failed to follow up breaches of planning control; and
• failed to respond to Mr X’s emails and telephone calls
3. He says the development has had the following negative impacts on Mr & Mrs Y’s home:
• loss of privacy and light
• reduction in property value; and
• nuisance from ongoing construction work
4. Mr X wants the Council to:
• revoke the planning permissions
• ensure work is carried out according to correct plans, checking to ensure compliance; and
• pay compensation

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered the planning documents on the Council’s website.
7. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council received another planning application in 2020 for 2 properties next to Mr & Mrs Y’s home. This application was for:
• front porches
• increased height on a new boundary wall; and
• alterations to the rear elevation to infill a recess
9. Mr X objected to the application because:
• the alterations removed all parking
• lack of fire escape to the properties
• changes to the boundary
• porches are not in keeping with the area and were previously refused; and
• changes to the internal layout of the properties have been made without applications for change of use
10. The case officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of the objections from Mr X and Mrs & Mrs Y.
11. The report notes the Council’s conservation officer had no objections to the proposal. It also explains why the officer considers the proposed development to be acceptable. The Council granted planning permission. Mr X complained.
12. In response Mr X’s complaint, the Council confirmed the following:
• the approved plans show a courtyard area for which the application form confirmed would be for parking
• The planning application form clearly states that existing parking for 8 cars will be retained
• there was a discrepancy between the exact position of his property and its location on the site plan. However, the application was still acceptable having considered this point
• the application did not cover bin storage arrangements
• an enforcement investigation was taking place on the reported breach of planning control
13. I understand Mr X is not happy with the level of response from the Council to his objections and complaints.
14. However, it is clear from the correspondence I have seen that the Council has responded to Mr X’s concerns. Officers have confirmed they have taken exact measurements from the plans provided by the applicant, Ordnance Survey base plans and aerial photographs. They have compared these with information provided by Mr X and acknowledge the window on the plans is not shown in the correct position. Not withstanding this, the impact on Mr & Mrs Y’s habitable rooms was considered and had the correct position of the window been shown, permission would still have been granted.
15. Mr X is not satisfied with the level of response from the case officer. But although planning authorities must publicise all planning applications, they must only invite representations. This is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
16. The Council told Mr X the planning enforcement team investigated a report of a breach of planning control at the properties. At the time of the Council’s response no breach had been identified. But monitoring was continuing.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s complaints and it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
18. Finally, Mr X is seeking revocation of the planning permissions and compensation. This is not something we can achieve for him.
     

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman