Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for her neighbour’s extension. We did not investigate this complaint further as it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault or a remedy for a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a large extension to her neighbour’s home. Ms X said the Council’s planning case officer’s report included errors and failed to take account of the impact the development would have on her conservatory.
2. Ms X said she felt compelled to move away from the area because of the impact the new development had on her amenity and enjoyment of her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants/

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with Ms 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 Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this 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. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
11. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues;
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.
12. Not all planning decisions are made by council planning committees. Councils may delegate decisions to planning officers to make some decisions, restricted to circumstances set out in delegation schemes. Delegation schemes are found in a council’s constitution.
13. We accept that delegated reports might be written differently, as their target audience is a professional planner, not a member of the planning committee. However, delegated reports still need to demonstrate the core issues have been considered and set out the reasons for judgements on planning matters, albeit briefly stated.

What happened

14. Ms X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to extend their home.
15. The Council’s planning case officer wrote a report that included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from neighbours including Ms X and other consultees;
• relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
16. The application and the case officer’s report were considered by a senior planning officer, who approved the application using delegated powers.
17. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s decision as the report contained errors and failed to mention her conservatory. Ms X was also unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint.
18. Ms X said that she felt compelled to sell her home and move away from the area.

My findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
20. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
21. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
22. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
23. I have considered Ms X’s complaint, but I should not investigate it further for the following reasons:
• The case officer’s report may not be perfect in every detail, but the courts have made it clear that such reports need only include the key issues. In my view, the report includes enough information to show the Council satisfies this test. It includes details of the application plans, relevant policy, the impact on amenity of neighbours and their concerns, and the case officer’s thoughts and recommendations. Because of this, it is unlikely that we would find fault or fault that would have made any difference to the outcome.
• Where we find fault, most of our remedies for the injustice it caused focus on practical measures to protect amenities, like screening, planting or window blinds. Ms X has now sold her home and moved, so we cannot provide a remedy of this kind. We are also unlikely to be able to recommend financial remedies for the costs of moving home. This is because we are not generally able to show there was a single or main motive for an individual’s decision to move house and this was a direct and unavoidable consequence of the Council’s planning decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I ended my investigation because it is unlikely to result in a meaningful outcome, such as finding of fault or a remedy for a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman