Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for development next to his home. There was no fault by the Council in this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained the Council failed to follow its Local Plan and its Constitution when dealing with a planning application for development next to his home. He reports that the development, which was approved, is overbearing and obstructs the views from his home, and that he has been caused a lot of stress and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered all the information provided by Mr B about his complaint, and the complaints correspondence obtained from the Council. I also took account of information available on the Council’s website, including relevant planning documents and policy documents.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered all comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative information

Decision making and material considerations in planning

6. When a council makes a decision on a planning application it can only take certain issues into account. These are often referred to as material planning considerations. Material considerations in determination of planning applications relate to the use and development of land in the public interest.

• Examples of material planning considerations include overlooking and loss of privacy; loss of light or overshadowing; and proposals in the council’s Development Plan.
• Examples of matters which are not material planning considerations include loss of view and negative impact on property value. In addition, party wall issues and damage to neighbouring property caused by development are not material planning considerations: these are civil matters between neighbours.

7. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
8. General planning policies may pull in different directions (for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Process

9. Not all planning decisions are made by council planning committees. Councils may delegate some decisions to planning officers, restricted to circumstances set out in delegation schemes. Delegation schemes are found in a council’s constitution.

Council policy and guidance

10. Within the Council’s Local Plan, policies include guidance on the extension of existing building, referring to the need for the Council to consider implications for amenity on adjacent properties such as outlook, loss of light or privacy. The Council also has a supplementary planning document which gives additional guidance in respect of design quality of extensions to existing property.

What happened in this case

The planning application

11. Mr B’s immediate neighbour applied for planning permission to extend their home, which is the adjoining semi-detached house to Mr B’s home. The proposed works included a single storey extension to the front and rear plus demolition of a garage to be replaced by a two-storey extension.
12. Mr B objected to the application on several grounds, both when initial plans were submitted and later when revised plans were submitted. His objections included obstruction of the view and outlook from his ground floor window, and overbearing impact at the rear impacting on light.
13. An officer prepared a report in respect of the application. It set out relevant policies from its Local Plan, and extracts from its supplementary planning guidance. It noted that Mr B’s home has a bow window to the ground floor at the front, and a conservatory at the rear on the boundary shared with the applicant’s property. It noted the objections Mr B had made, and noted that the main issues for consideration were the impact on the living conditions of neighbours, with particular regard to the impact upon loss of light, outlook and privacy; and the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
14. In respect of Mr B’s residential amenity, the report set out the officer’s consideration of potential impact and having done so concluded that the impact was not so harmful as to justify refusal of planning permission. Noting also that the proposal was deemed to be in accordance with Local Plan Policy, it was recommended for approval.
15. The application was subsequently approved, and planning permission was issued.

The complaint

16. Mr B complained to the Council. He considered the application had not been properly assessed against relevant guidelines and the supplementary guidance, and that the report set out the personal view of a member of staff from an outsourced provider. He also complained that the decision-making had not been carried out in accordance with the Council’s constitution, believing that the Council had wrongly delegated its decision-making to this outsourced provider.
17. Responding to Mr B’s complaint, the Council found no fault. It referred to the consideration given to Mr B’s amenity in the officer’s report and said it had been correctly assessed against relevant guidelines. The application had been determined not by the case officer but by the planning manager, and this was in accord with the scheme of delegation to officers set out in the Council’s constitution. Regarding outsourcing, the Council explained that its planning service is delivered by a partnership organisation to which some planning officers are seconded, and those officers make decisions on behalf of the Council in accordance with the scheme of delegation. That scheme sets out which officers can determine planning applications and in which circumstances.

Analysis

18. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made.
19. The case officer’s report shows that, before it made its decision, the Council gave the public and other consultees an opportunity to comment. It then took account of comments, along with plans of the proposal, relevant policy and guidance and the main material planning considerations. The decision was made by a senior officer in compliance with the scheme of delegation to officers, as set out in the Council’s constitution. This is the process we would expect, and in these circumstances, I find no fault in the way the decision was made.
20. Mr B's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman