Summary: We found no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Miss X’s property.

The complaint

1. Miss X said the Council relied on inaccurate information to assess a planning application and grant planning permission for development near her home. Miss X said the development was overbearing and overshadowed her property removing light from the rear garden. What happened also caused much stress and reduced the value of her property. Miss X wanted the Council to admit it both made mistakes handling the application and should not have granted the development planning permission. Miss X also wanted changes made the development to reduce its impact on her property.

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

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. People decide what development they want to carry out but most development then needs planning permission from the local council before work starts. The planning applicant, or developer, prepares the planning application and its supporting documents. The developer must sign the application form which includes a declaration confirming, to the best of their knowledge, ‘any facts stated are true and accurate’.
6. On receiving a planning application, councils will check it is complete. For example, councils will need the signed application form with an ownership certificate; the correct fee; a site plan; and plans, drawings, or other information necessary to describe the development. Drawings do not need to be professionally prepared. Neither do plans have to include measurements but they should have a scale. People may then work out the measurements using the scale.
7. Councils usually have eight weeks to decide an application. Within the eight weeks, they must publicise the application so people may comment on the development. The publicity needed depends on the nature of the development although all applications must be published on the council’s website. Here, the Council also needed to either put up a notice on or near the application site or write to neighbouring properties.
8. Councils must consider each application on its own merits. They must also make their planning decisions in line with relevant policies in their development plans unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and not to private considerations. Examples of private considerations are the applicant’s behaviour and changes to house prices. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
9. A council planning officer may, but does not have to, visit the application site. The officer may also prepare a report assessing the proposed development against relevant planning policies and other material planning considerations. Planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, promoting residential development and protecting existing residential amenities. The officer will therefore balance and weigh the issues and reach a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
10. A senior council officer will usually consider planning officers’ reports and decide most applications using powers given to them by their council. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application. So, the senior officer may reach a different view to the planning officer and does not have to agree their recommendation.

What happened

11. The Council received a completed planning application for development near Miss X’s home. The Council placed the application on its website and provided evidence in support of its posting letters to adjoining properties to tell them about the development. While living near the application site, Miss X’s home did not share a boundary with it. She did not therefore receive a ‘neighbour notification’ letter from the Council.
12. The Council planning officer that considered the application did not make a site visit. The officer prepared a report assessing the application against relevant planning policies and material planning considerations. (‘the Report’). The Report identified the impact of the development on neighbouring amenities as a key issue in deciding the application. The Report referred to existing buildings on the site and said the development’s ‘slight difference in height would not have a harmful impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties’. The Report recommended granting the development planning permission
13. A senior Council officer considered the application and the Report. The Council said the senior officer viewed the application drawings and applied the scale in deciding to grant the development planning permission.
14. Later, Miss X bought a property next to the application site (‘the Property’). Miss X became aware of the Report and that it said the development would not harm neighbouring properties.
15. The development started and Miss X became concerned about the height of the development. Miss X complained to the Council saying the Report was wrong as the development caused harm in dominating and overshadowing the Property.
16. Later, Miss X said the developer had provided inaccurate drawings with the application, which disguised the height of existing buildings on the site. Miss X said the Council’s planning officer should have noticed the drawings were wrong when visiting the site. Miss X also said the development was not in line with the approved plans. (The Council carried out planning enforcement visits and contacted the developer. It told Miss X the development complied with the approved plans and there was no breach of planning control.)
17. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council said, in summary, the development drawings were accurate and met the rules for validating (formally accepting) the application. The impact of development on neighbouring amenities was a matter of planning judgement. It had fully and properly assessed the development and made its decision in line with its development plan policies. It had considered existing buildings on the site and found, on balance, the increased height of the development was not so significant it justified refusing planning permission. It recognised Miss X disagreed but differing views did not mean the planning permission was wrong.

Consideration

Introduction

18. The law gives the Council, as local planning authority, the power to decide whether to grant or refuse planning permission. My role is to consider whether the Council acted with fault in reaching its planning decision. I have no view on the merits of the development, that is, whether it is ‘good’, ‘bad’ or ‘indifferent’. If I find evidence of fault, I must consider if, on balance, it is likely to have affected the Council’s planning decision. But, without evidence of fault, I cannot question its planning decision however strongly Miss X may disagree with it (see paragraph 2). So, is there evidence of fault by the Council?

The planning decision

19. The Council was entitled to accept the application drawings although they were hand drawn (see paragraph 6). And, without evidence to the contrary, to accept them as accurate. In sending a neighbour notification letter to the Property, it gave the then owner the opportunity to comment on the development. It received no comments from any neighbouring properties and the Parish Council said it had no objections. I therefore found no fault in how the Council formally accepted and publicised the application.
20. The Council’s planning officer did not visit the site, but they did not need to do so. I therefore could find no fault here. The planning officer then identified neighbouring amenities as a key issue in deciding the application and addressed it in the Report. The Council said it scaled the application drawings and considered the development would be 0.5 metres higher than existing buildings on the site next to the Property.
21. Long after the grant of planning permission, Miss X, and the specialist she engaged, disputed the drawings. Miss X’s specialist measured the height of existing buildings shown on the application drawings as 0.5 metres lower than the Council. Overall, Miss X and her specialist said the difference shown in the drawings between existing buildings and the development was 0.9 metres. And, the true difference, taking account of the actual height of the former buildings on the site and the development, was 1.24 metres. The Council does not accept Miss X’s figures.
22. It is regrettable the parties cannot agree the scaled measurements for existing buildings shown on the drawings. However, the height of these buildings varied. Indeed, Miss X referred to a drawing showing an “elevated height” so it looked as if the development would ‘build up’ to that height. But, both parties scaled a similar figure for the height of the development next to the Property. This is important as the Council was considering the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring amenities. I therefore see no evidence the Council failed to assess the correct proposed height of the development in reaching its planning decision.
23. The Report provided evidence the Council did consider the impact of the development on neighbouring amenities. It found such impact acceptable. Miss X does not and refers to the Council’s use of the word ‘slight’ in describing the height difference between existing site buildings and the development. However, as the Council points out, the courts have considered the interpretation of planning officers’ reports. Such reports should be read ‘in the round’ and not forensically examined. They are also written mainly for consideration by other professional planning officers or councillors on a council’s planning committee. Such readers will be familiar with planning law, procedure and practice and their council’s planning policies, and have knowledge of their local areas. So, while I recognise Miss X’s concerns about ‘slight’, reading the Report as a whole, it does address the impact on the development on neighbouring amenity. I cannot therefore find the Council failed to have regard to that issue, which would likely have been fault in the circumstances here. But, having directed itself to consider impacts on neighbouring amenity, it was for the Council to decide whether that impact was acceptable. Without evidence of fault, I could not question its decision although I recognised the strength and depth of Miss X’s opposing view.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I completed my investigation finding no fault in how the Council reached its planning decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman