Summary: Mr B complained that there was fault in the way the Council considered an application for planning permission for a development next to his property. He says no computer-generated visualisations were provided showing the impact on his property. He says the development will result in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that there was fault in the way the Council considered an application for planning permission for a development next to his property. In particular, he says no computer-generated visualisations were provided showing the impact on his property. He says the development will result in “an unneighbourly sense of enclosure”.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

3. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I have also considered the documents available on the Council’s website and watched a recording of the Planning Board meeting.
4. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
6. Planning considerations include things like:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
7. The officer’s report must be sufficiently clear and full to enable Members of the planning committee to understand the important issues and the relevant material considerations and to enable them to reach a decision. The assessment of how much and what information should be included in the officer’s report is a matter for the officer’s professional judgement.

Key facts

8. The Council applied for planning permission to demolish garages behind Mr B’s property and construct two bungalows as part of its programme of building homes for social rent.
9. The Council’s agent (‘the agent’) completed an online consultation with residents and sent out letters detailing the proposals. Having submitted the planning application, the agent held a meeting with residents at which it agreed to submit to the Council’s planning department computer-generated visualisations showing the impact of the proposals on neighbouring properties.
10. The Council’s planning department consulted residents on the proposed development. Mr B raised concerns about the size of the roof of the proposed bungalows which he considered would result in an “unneighbourly sense of enclosure”.
11. The planning case officer (‘Officer X’) prepared a report for the Planning Board. The report set out details of the site and the proposed development and summarised neighbours’ responses to the application and the responses of the statutory consultees. The report also discussed the material planning considerations in detail, including the impact on neighbouring amenity.
12. Officer X stated that the proposed development would be between 6.4 metres and 7.4 metres from the rear of properties on Mr B’s road. But there would be no windows on the elevation facing those properties so there would be no overlooking.
13. Officer X accepted there would be some visual impact because of the roof design but concluded that the proposal would not cause any undue overbearing impact or sense of enclosure. He explained that the garages on the site are directly adjacent to the boundary wall and are between 2 metres and 2.6 metres high whereas the bungalows would be set back from the boundary wall and have an eaves height of 2.2 metres. The ridge height would be significantly higher than the garages but significantly lower than the existing two-storey dwellings and would slope away from the properties in Mr B’s road and so have a minor impact. Officer X concluded that, overall, because of the proposed separation distances and modest height, the proposed development would not cause undue loss of privacy, sense of enclosure or overbearing impacts. He recommended the application for approval.
14. Further objections were received by the planning department before the Planning Board meeting so Officer X prepared addendum reports in which he commented on the issues raised by the objectors. These included: the excessive height of the roof causing a sense of enclosure and impacting on the view of the sky; the agent’s failure to provide three-dimensional computer-generated visualisations so it was not possible to properly assess the extent of the enclosure; the application site is on much higher ground than Mr B’s road so the proposed bungalows appear to be as high as a three-storey building.
15. Officer X stated it was officers’ view that the existing garages were detrimental to the character of the area and the proposed development would be an enhancement to the street scene. He accepted the proposed development would cause some minor visual impacts because of the increased ridge height and width but stated that the impact on outlook and the sense of enclosure would be mitigated by the lower eaves height, proposed separation distances and pitched roof design.
16. The application was considered by the Planning Board. At the meeting, Officer X presented the application to Members and showed an aerial photograph of the site and referred Members to relevant plans. Two residents spoke in objection to the application, including Mr B. He explained that his living room is on the first floor of his property and the proposed development would result in loss of views from his main living area and a feeling of enclosure.
17. The agent’s representative also addressed Members. He explained that the properties on Mr B’s road were lower than the application site so the apex of the bungalows’ roof had been altered to ensure the least possible impact. He showed a plan illustrating this. He also showed photographs from a property on Mr B’s road. He explained that, although the agent had agreed to provide computer-generated visualisations, it had not been possible to produce the images because there were not enough fixed known points available because the garages were covered with ivy. The agent accepted the outlook from properties on Mr B’s road would change.
18. The agent answered questions from Members who then discussed the application. Members voted in favour of the application and granted planning permission.

Analysis

19. Mr B says that, by failing to present computer-generated visualisations to the Planning Board, the agent minimised his objection to the proposed development. He says that without this information, it is not possible to determine the impact of the proposal on the quality of life in his main living area which is on the first floor of his property. He says the agent also omitted to show Members photographs taken from his property. He believes the Planning Board would not have granted planning permission if this visual information had been presented.
20. The applicant’s agent explained why it was not possible to produce computer-generated visualisations. In any event, there is no requirement for an applicant to produce computer-generated visualisations or photographs taken from a neighbouring property.
21. I am satisfied sufficient information was available to Members to allow them to reach an informed view on the application. They were aware of Mr B’s concerns as these were set out in the Officer’s report and both Mr B and another resident spoke at the meeting. Mr B raised his concerns about the lack of computer-generated visualisations in his comments on the application. So, Members were aware of his concerns regarding this. It was open to them to defer the application if they considered there was insufficient information to enable them to reach a decision.
22. I am satisfied the officer’s report clearly set out the issues, including residents’ concerns, and specifically considers the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of existing properties. Plans showing the existing buildings on site and details of the proposed development together with the difference in ground levels were available to Members. So, I am satisfied they were aware of the relevant facts when reaching their decision and had enough information to understand the relationship of the proposed development to Mr B’s property and the impact on his amenity.
23. The role of Members of the Planning Board is to weigh material planning considerations in favour of the application with the objections to it and reach a decision based on their view of the balance of those factors. The fact that there are objections does not necessarily mean an application should be refused. Members must assess the degree of impact on neighbouring properties and decide if it is so great that the application should be refused. This is a judgement they make considering all relevant information.
24. It is recognised and accepted that some planning permissions will adversely affect neighbouring properties. However, the test is whether the proposed development would reduce neighbours’ amenity below an acceptable level. This is a subjective test which depends on the character of the area and the nature of the proposed development.
25. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application, including the impact of the proposal on Mr B’s amenity. Having done so, it was satisfied there were no grounds to warrant a refusal of planning permission. As the Council’s decision was reached through proper process, we cannot question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.
27. I have completed my investigation on the basis that I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman