Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council decided an application for development adjacent to her property. We found no fault in the way the Council decided the application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly decide a planning application for the development of a site adjacent to her home. Mrs X complains the development as approved will affect the setting and her amenity unreasonably.

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 spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to my enquiries.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s scheme of delegation

6. Section 15 of the Council’s scheme of delegation sets out when council officers can decide planning applications and when, by exception, they need to be referred to the Development Management Committee (DMC). Relevant exceptions to officer’s delegated decisions, include:
• Major applications (those where the application is for ten or more houses).
• Where an elected Council Member refers a planning application to the Chair of the DMC to request that the application be made by the Committee, and the Chairman of the DMC confirms the referral request.

What happened

7. A planning application was originally submitted in July 2019 for four houses on a plot of land adjacent to Mrs X’s property.
8. The plans showed four semi-detached houses with integral garages. The plans show a pavement in front of the proposed houses, linked to an ‘existing pavement’ passing in front of Mrs X’s property.
9. In August Mrs X objected to the proposals. She commented about the site being green belt and not identified for development in the Neighbourhood Plan. She expressed concerns about highway safety, protected trees and the visual impact of the development. She also stated there was no pavement in front of her property, it ended further up the road. As there was no pavement, Mrs X stated it was not possible to provide a pedestrian footpath between the development and the village.
10. In August, the Parish Council also commented on the proposals. It stated the site was not an identified housing site in the Neighbourhood plan, but it stated the village boundary had been amended to include the site in question and it was identified as suitable for housing development. The Parish Council raised various other issues and set out actions it sought before it could support the application. The actions included confirmation there was a footpath in highways ownership in front of Mrs X’s property connecting the site to the village.
11. The Highway Authority stated it had no objection to the proposals subject to some proposed conditions. One condition stated that the site access (including pedestrian footpath) should be completed to the Highway Authority’s satisfaction before any of the houses could be occupied.
12. The Council agreed an extension of time until 23 April 2020 to decide the application.
13. On 22 March 2020 the applicant sent in revised plans. The amendments showed the four houses in slightly different positions. The houses were of a different design. They remained four semi-detached properties with integral garages.
14. On 10 April the Parish Council provided comments. The Parish Council understood the previous development plans required a slight amendment to resolve an issue with parking provision. They noted the issue with the availability of the public footpath. The Parish Council noted the revised plans were of a different design that they did not find acceptable. They stated the site only met planning policy because it had been identified as suitable for housing with an extended village boundary in the Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council set out design issues which they considered to be against the requirements of the Neighbourhood Plan.
15. Although the Council reconsulted statutory consultees it did not reconsult the public. In any event, Mrs X was aware of the revisions and sent a further representation, objecting to the application on 13 April.
16. On 14 April, Mrs X contacted a Council Member asking him to call the application in to be decided by the DMC. The Councillor responded on 15 April stating that he did not have sufficient information to make the referral. I understand he decided to wait to see the Council’s response to the Parish Council’s points. He did not make a referral for the DMC to consider the application.
17. Officers responded to the Parish Council, including the Councillor Mrs X had approached, on 22 April.
18. The case officer’s report for the application noted the objections received from the public and the Parish Council. Officers acknowledged the site was not an identified housing site but it was within the extended village boundary where housing could be permitted. It noted the Neighbourhood Plan made some considerations in terms of design but, these were not part of a policy. The design of the houses was assessed, taking account of the surrounding properties and considered acceptable.
19. The report considered neighbours’ amenity, including that of Mrs X. The report set out the officer’s view on other points Mrs X made in her objections.
20. When considering highways issues, the case officer acknowledged the comments about there being no continuity of the pavement to connect the site to the village. The report stated a footpath does extend the majority of the width of No 6, with the land being under the ownership of Highways. Highways had not objected to the application.
21. Having considered the issues, officers decided and approved the planning application on 23 April under delegated powers.

Mrs X’s complaint

22. The key issues of Mrs X’s complaint were that the development was revised without neighbours being reconsulted, comments from the Parish Council and the public had been disregarded and that the proposals were not in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan. She felt the plan had been ignored.
23. Mrs X also said that she had requested the application be considered by the DMC rather than officers and this had been ignored. Mrs X was concerned that the development would have a big impact on their light and outlook.
24. The Council responded to the complaint, but as Mrs X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response she brought a complaint to us.

Was there fault by the Council

25. The Council publicised the application when it was originally received in 2019. Mrs X was aware of the application and sent an objection. Although the Council did not send further notification when the application was amended in 2020, the amendments did not change the type or number of properties being built. In any event, Mrs X was aware of the changes and she was able to submit further comments. So, I have not considered the notification issue further as it caused no injustice to Mrs X.
26. The case officer’s report shows that officers considered comments by the Parish Council. The report also considered the content of the Neighbourhood Plan regarding the principle of development and design. The report noted the comments Mrs X made about the impact to her amenity and about trees on the site.
27. The case officer also considered the Highway Authority comments and that they made no objections on safety or other grounds. The report noted the apparent lack of a pavement fronting Mrs X’s property,but stated this had been disputed by the Highway Authority.
28. Although I understand Mrs X does not agree with the Council’s assessment or conclusions on the issues she raised in her objections, the issues she raised were considered by the Council when reaching its decision. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its view on the issues Mrs X raised, and I have no grounds to question the Council’s decisions.
29. I understand Mrs X asked a Councill Member to refer the application to the DMC. She was unhappy that the application was still decided by officers. There is no guarantee that the committee will consider an application following a request from a member of the public. The Council’s constitution allows referrals to be made by Council Members to the Chair of the Committee. However, in this case the Council Member chose not to make the referral. This was his decision to reach. Mrs X says she was not made aware by the councillor why he did not refer the case. It would have been preferable for an explanation to be given to any member of the public seeking to have an application referred to committee. However, as no referral had been made, the scheme of delegation is clear that decisions may still be made by officers. So, I recognise Mrs X was disappointed, but I found no fault in the way the application was decided.
30. I note the Council intended to liaise further with the Parish Council about communication and any issues of concern. I also recognise Mrs X was unhappy with the outcome of the planning application but I have found no fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter, so I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman