Summary: Mr J complains the Council misled the planning committee in how it referred to land for a proposed development next to his property. He says conditions for development on the land have not been met and the proposed development will have a negative impact on his quality of life. There was some fault by the Council in how it presented the information to the planning committee, however this has not caused significant injustice to Mr J.

The complaint

1. Mr J says the Council;

• misled the planning committee by not stating the land to be developed was green link and the conditions for development on such land have not been considered,
• did not send letters about the planning application to all local residents,
• did not properly consider objections made to the application, and
• breached planning regulations with the separation distances between existing properties and the proposed development.

2. Mr J says the process has caused him anxiety, stress and affected his mental health. He says his objections have been ignored. Mr J says the development in question would have a negative effect on his quality of life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 have read the complaint and discussed it with Mr J on the telephone. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered material it has supplied to me. I have read relevant policies and legislation.
6. I invited Mr J and the Council to comment on the draft decision, and considered comments made in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use).
8. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications.  The publicity required depends on the nature of the development although in all cases the application must be published on the council’s website. In this case, the requirement was also for a site notice or neighbour notification.
9. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
10. Sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
11. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers.

What happened

12. A planning application was submitted to the Council to demolish a block of garages and replace with three dwellings. The garages were owned by the Council, but it had agreed to sell them to a developer. The garages were next to Mr J’s property and an area of designated green link space.
13. Notification of the planning application was sent to Mr J and the houses that are in the same row as his. Mr J said initially not all of the houses received a letter but a further letter reached some more residents. He said a notice was also attached to a lamp post in the street. Mr J said residents across the road from him did not receive a letter and he felt they should have.
14. Objections to the planning application were made by Mr J and his neighbours. These were entered onto the planning application which was visible on the Council’s website.
15. Mr J said the separation distance between the existing properties and the proposed development is not sufficient and goes against planning regulations, as the distance does not take into account an additional structure Mr J’s neighbour has at ground floor level.
16. A report was compiled by the Council to be considered by the Planning Committee, which comprised of councillors from the area local to the application. The report detailed the development proposals and contained reference to objections made by residents.
17. The report referred to the green link land as grassed amenity space. It also detailed its policy on loss of open space, policy NH6. The Council’s policy for developing on green link land is policy NH4, but this was not contained in the report.
18. A design and access statement submitted by the developer did refer to the land as green link and detailed policy NH4.
19. The Planning Committee meeting took place virtually and I have been able to watch a recording of the meeting. Mr J attended the meeting and made representations to the Committee. It also heard from the planning officer. The meeting discussed issues raised by the residents.
20. In respect of separation distance, the Committee heard the distance had been measured at first floor level, as an additional structure had been added at ground floor level to one of the existing properties.
21. The Committee discussed issues such as parking impacts, wildlife concerns and the loss of green link space. It also heard the case for the development of the houses.
22. The Committee voted on the proposal and passed the planning application, with seven members voting for and six members voting against.
23. Mr J complained to the Council, but it did not put him through its complaints procedure or refer him to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied. It did provide a response and advised him to seek legal action.

Analysis

24. For a planning application of this size, the Council is only required to provide a site notice or neighbour notification. Mr J said he received a letter and that some of his neighbours did receive one eventually. They made objections to the application, so I am satisfied they were aware of it. Mr J also said a notice was attached to a lamp post in the street. The Council did not have to send a letter to neighbours and place a site notice, one of these actions would have been sufficient to meet its obligations. Mr J said other properties were not contacted, such as ones across the road from him, but this is not required for a development of this size. I do not find fault with how the Council notified residents.
25. The Planning Committee considered objections raised by residents and these were discussed at the meeting. The objections had been added to the Council’s planning website and were visible for the public to see. The Committee considered the objections against the planning application and found in favour of the proposed development. I do not find fault with how the Council considered the objections and presented them to the Committee.
26. Mr J raised the issue of separation distances between the existing properties and proposed dwellings. The Committee considered the information detailed in paragraph 20 of this statement and accepted the separation distance at first floor level. I do not find fault with how the Council detailed the separation distance between the buildings.
27. The Planning Officer’s report to the Planning Committee did not detail some of the land to be developed as green link or specify its relevant policy for developing green link sites, contained in its local plan. The report referred to another policy, NH6, which is about loss of open space generally. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it would have been better if it had referred to its policy on green link space, NH4. The Planning Committee did ask about loss of green link space, and it was discussed, with the relevant area confirmed as green link. The design and access statement on the planning website also referred to the land as green link. There was fault by the Council in not detailing the land as green link in its report. However, I do not believe this would have changed the decision and the issue of green link was discussed by the Planning Committee. Therefore, I do not consider that the Council’s fault has caused significant injustice to Mr J.
28. The Council should have provided Mr J with the option for his complaint to be dealt with through its complaints process. I recognise it felt Mr J’s right to redress was through a judicial review, and it was concerned about time scales Mr J would have to do this in. However it should have given Mr J the opportunity to proceed through its complaints process and signpost to the Ombudsman if he remained unsatisfied after it had concluded. Mr J did make a complaint to the Ombudsman, so whilst there was fault by the Council, it has not caused significant injustice to Mr J.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I uphold a finding of fault against the Council for how it described land to be developed in its report and for how it dealt with Mr J’s complaint. However, these faults have not caused significant injustice to Mr J which require a remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman