Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for his neighbour’s extension.

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 read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
10. Planning guidance and policy should not be treated as if it creates a binding rule that must be followed. Councils must take account of relevant policy along with other material planning considerations, before they make their decisions.

What happened

11. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to build an extension. The Council refused the application because of the impact the proposal would have on the street scene.
12. The neighbour applied again after making changes to the shape of the roof. A planning case officer considered the application and wrote a report. The case officer’s report included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from Mr X and other consultees;
• details of planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the principle of development and impact on street scene, the impact on amenity and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
13. The case officer compared the new application with the earlier application it had refused. The main reason for the recommendation to approve was the change in the roof design, which prevented a terracing effect.
14. The application, the plans, the case officer’s report and other documents were considered by a senior officer, who granted approval subject to planning conditions.

My finding

15. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for fault in the decision making process, and if we find it, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant.
16. Before it made its decision, the Council considered the application, plans, comments from Mr X and others, relevant policy and the recommendations of its planning case officer. The Council followed the decision making process we would expect and so I find no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Final decision

17. I completed my investigation because there was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman