Summary: We found no fault in how the Authority reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Ms X’s home.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Authority’s handling of a planning application for development near her home because it:

• failed to tell her about the application;
• failed to visit to visit her home to assess the impact of the development;
• failed to decide the application at its Development Management Committee (‘DMC’);
• decided the application on plans that wrongly named nearby homes, including her own; and
• did not take proper account of the impact of the development on her garden privacy.

2. Ms X said the development was overbearing and, in overlooking her property, had destroyed the privacy of her garden. Ms X wanted the Authority to both change the development to make it less intrusive and add conditions to increase and keep screening between her property and the development.

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 an authority’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 an authority’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 Ms X’s written complaint and supporting comments and papers;
• talked to Ms X about the complaint;
• considered information about the development available on the Authority’s website;
• asked for and considered the Authority’s comments and supporting papers about the complaint;
• shared the Authority’s comments and supporting papers with Ms X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Ms X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The Authority is a local planning authority (LPA) with responsibility for deciding planning applications for development within the national park. Planning applicants are responsible for completing the planning application form and providing the necessary plans for their proposed development. The Authority received a planning application for development within the grounds of a property near Ms X’s home (‘the Application’). Plans supporting the Application, while correctly showing neighbouring properties, wrongly named some. Ms X’s home was wrongly named. The Authority spotted the naming error and asked the applicant to correct a plan and another document.
7. The LPA must publicise planning applications so people may comment on development proposals. The publicity needed depends on the nature of the development although LPAs must publish all applications on their website. In this case, the Authority also had to put up a site notice or send letters to properties sharing a boundary with the application site. The Authority said it did both: it sent letters to neighbouring properties, including one to Ms X’s postal address. The Authority also arranged to place a notice at the development site. Publicising an application gives people the opportunity to comment on development proposals before the LPA decides whether to grant or refuse planning permission.
8. A case officer from the LPA will usually visit a development site, although this is not legally necessary. Here, the Authority’s planning case officer did visit and took many photographs. The photographs included some from the top of an existing building (‘the Building’) the Application sought to change in appearance and extend in height.
9. LPAs must decide each planning application on its merits and in line with relevant policies in their local plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, for example, issues such as overlooking and noise. Private considerations, for example, the applicant’s behaviour or changes to property values, are not material considerations. Peoples’ comments on land use and planning matters are also material planning considerations. The LPA must take such comments into account, but it does not have to agree with them.
10. Planning policies and material planning considerations may pull in different directions, for example, promoting new homes and protecting existing residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to relevant policies and material issues when determining a planning application. In practice this means the LPA may grant planning permission for development that is not consistent with relevant planning policies and other material planning considerations.
11. The planning case officer also normally prepares a report assessing the development against relevant policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission. LPAs will grant planning permission unless they find sufficient planning grounds to justify a refusal. The LPA must give reasons for refusing planning permission. The applicant may then decide to challenge the decision on appeal or to change the proposals to overcome the refusal reasons.
12. Here, the Authority’s report (‘the Report’) identified relevant planning policies, including policy DMD4 ‘protecting local amenity’. Policy DMD4 includes that ‘development proposals should not significantly reduce the levels of privacy enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby properties’. The Report also referred to peoples’ comments on the development, including objections from Ms X. In summary, Ms X’s objections were about the extended Building overlooking and considerably reducing privacy to her home. Ms X said reducing the loss of privacy was not possible because of differing ground levels and a lack of natural screening. Ms X also pointed out the labelling error, which wrongly named her home, on an application plan.
13. The Report set out the planning case officer’s (‘the Officer’) assessment of the development. The assessment referred to peoples’ objections but considered the position of new windows in the Building meant they would not cause additional loss of privacy. And new windows and openings would mainly overlook the site’s grounds and rooflines and vegetation of neighbouring properties. The Report recommended the grant of planning permission.
14. A senior officer of the LPA will consider most reports and decide applications using powers given to them by the LPA. A few reports will go to the LPA’s planning committee. Each LPA has its own arrangements about which applications its planning committee may and should decide. Here, the Authority’s arrangements provided for a senior officer to decide planning applications except, in summary, where:

• a member of the DMC asked for the application to be considered by the DMC;
• the application was made by the Authority, its officers or members and people in their household;
• the application was linked to legal action by the Authority; and
• the senior officer considered the DMC should decide the application.

In this case, none of the four exceptions applied and the Authority’s senior officer considered the Report and decided to grant the development planning permission.

15. Ms X saw the decision on the Authority’s website. Ms X contacted the Authority and they corresponded for about two months, with the Authority also responding to Ms X under its complaints procedure. In summary, Ms X repeated her concerns about overlooking, the loss of privacy and the naming error in the plans. Ms X highlighted the lack of natural screening between her property and the Building. Ms X said the Authority had not given enough weight to the impact of the development on residents or taken their comments seriously. Ms X also asked if a visit took place to neighbouring properties and whether the DMC had decided the Application.
16. In its responses, the Authority confirmed it had visited the site and considered neighbours objections. It pointed to the position of new windows in the Building and the levels of the main property on the development site, its windows and terraced grounds. The Authority said, having considered these matters it did not believe the development caused additional loss of privacy but had a “neutral” impact.

Consideration

Introduction

17. For many people their homes and surroundings are important. Ms X’s concerns about the development near her home and its private garden were therefore understandable. I carefully considered all the information Ms X provided about the Authority’s handling of the Application and how the development had affected her and her home. However, I did not find it necessary to repeat and respond to every point raised by Ms X. My focus was the five issues set out at paragraph 1 of this statement.

Publicising the Application

18. The Authority provided a copy of the letter it said it posted to properties next to the development site, including Ms X’s home. It also produced a photograph from the Officer’s visit showing a notice about the Application attached to a fence. The Authority therefore provided evidence it had publicised the Application and I had no grounds to question this evidence.
19. I did not doubt that Ms X did not receive the Authority’s letter. But the Authority used Ms X’s correct address and so there was no clear reason to explain why this happened. However, once anyone places an item in the post, they no longer have control over its delivery. And, here, the Authority posted the letters when COVID-19 restrictions applied. On the evidence, I found no fault here by the Authority.
20. Publicising an application gives people an opportunity to comment on development proposals. Here, while not receiving a letter, Ms X became aware of the Application and submitted her objections. Not receiving the letter did not therefore prevent Ms X from making her views known to, and considered by, the Authority in deciding the Application.

The site visit

21. There is no dispute the Authority did not visit Ms X’s or other neighbouring properties before deciding the Application. However, the Authority does not have to make any visit (see paragraph 8). And, while many LPAs do visit application sites, expanding a visit to include other properties is rare. Here, the photographs provided by the Authority showed the Officer considered surrounding views from the development site, including towards Ms X’s property. The photographs included views taken from the roof of the Building. I could not therefore find the Authority was unable to reach an informed view on the likely impact of the development on nearby properties. And I found no clear grounds for considering exceptional circumstances existed that might have needed a visit to adjoining land. So, while recognising Ms X’s disappointment, I had no grounds to find fault here.

The decision maker

22. Ms X believes if members of the DMC had considered the Application, they might have refused planning permission. I therefore recognised this point was important to Ms X. However, the Authority did not suggest its DMC would decide the Application. Rather, a Parish Council representative suggested this to Ms X.
23. I have no powers to investigate the actions of Parish Councils. And, having considered the Authority’s decision-making arrangements, I found no grounds to suggest the decision on the Application was not properly taken by its senior officer. I therefore found no fault here.

Wrongly named properties

24. There is no dispute that Application papers wrongly named neighbouring properties. This was unfortunate. However, the Authority was not responsible for the errors. The Authority said the Officer noticed the naming errors and asked the applicant to correct them. The evidence showed the applicant provided revised documents. However, one plan was overlooked and so the naming error it contained remained on the Authority’s website.
25. Ms X’s concern was the naming error, which affected her home, caused confusion in considering the impact of the development on her property. The evidence showed the Authority correctly understood the names of neighbouring properties. The Report also referred to ‘directions’ (south, east etc) rather than property names. For example, describing new windows and doors in the Building in the ‘northeast’ elevation. I found no evidence the Authority misunderstood the relationship between the development and nearby properties in assessing the impact of the proposals. I therefore found no fault here.

The failure to take proper account of Ms X’s representations

26. At the heart of Ms X’s complaint was her concern about the impact of the development on her privacy, particularly her garden. Ms X disputed the Authority’s view the impact was ‘neutral’. Ms X pointed to the lack of natural screening between her property and the Building and provided photographs from her property looking towards the development site.
27. Development results in change and change impacts on the surrounding area. People will have different views on whether the impact of a development is acceptable on planning and land use grounds. I had no role in arbitrating on such differing views and I held no view on the merits of any development. The law gives LPAs responsibility for making planning decisions. My role was to consider whether the Authority had followed the correct procedure and taken account of relevant planning matters to reach its planning decision. If it had, there would be no evidence of fault or, therefore, grounds for me to question its decision (see paragraph 3).
28. Here, the Report provided evidence the Authority took account of neighbours’ comments, including Ms X’s objections to the development. The Report also provided evidence the Authority assessed the impact of the development on neighbours’ living conditions. I therefore found no fault in how the Authority considered Ms X’s representations. Unfortunately for Ms X, having acted correctly, it reached a different view on to her and did not find the development had an unacceptable impact.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I completed my investigation finding no fault in how the Authority reached its planning decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman