Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for two dwellings next to his property. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It considered Mr X’s objections to the application when granting permission. As there was no fault in the process, we cannot question the merits of the Council's decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly consider relevant planning considerations and significant local objection when approving an application for two dwellings next to his home. He says this constitutes overdevelopment and he is disappointed the Council failed to impose screening conditions and properly consider the potential impact of the development on existing sewerage and drainage arrangements.
2. Mr X also complains this decision conflicts with the case officer’s previous opinion about development on the site.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X. I spoke to Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I sent Mr X and the Council a draft version of this decision and invited their comments. I considered any comments received before reaching this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and policy

Decision making and material considerations

7. Most development needs planning permission from the local council. People may apply for ‘outline planning permission’ to establish if development is acceptable in principle. If granted outline permission, the applicant will later need to get the council’s approval to ‘reserved matters’ before starting the development. Reserved matters may be any or all of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development.
8. Councils must consider each planning application on its own merits and decide it in line with their development plan policies, unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, promoting new housing and protecting open countryside.
9. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, and not private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct or property prices. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
10. Government statements of planning policy, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), are material considerations. The NPPF includes a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
11. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
12. Normally, a planning case officer will prepare a report, assessing proposed development against relevant development plan policies and other material planning considerations. The report will draw on all the information about the development, which will be available to councillors and local people. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission. A senior planning officer will consider most reports but some go to the council’s planning committee. It is for the officer or committee to decide the weight given to any material planning consideration when determining an application. The officer/committee do not have to accept the recommendation in the report.
13. Where an application goes to a planning committee, councils usually allow both supporters and objectors to address councillors. Most councils give people three to five minutes to put their views to the committee. Councillors may ask any speakers questions but do not have to.
14. Normally, councils grant planning permission if they consider the proposed development is in line with planning policy and they find no planning reason(s) of sufficient weight to justify a refusal.

Key facts

15. In 2018, Mr X’s neighbour (the Applicant) submitted an outline planning application to build a single dwelling on his property. The planning case officer (Officer J) recommended the application should be refused. The application was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee (the Committee) and it was approved in 2019.
16. In 2020, the Applicant submitted another application to build two dwellings (instead of one) on the same site. Officer J prepared a case report and recommended the Committee approve the application. Mr X submitted detailed objections and spoke to the Committee.
17. Mr X opposed the application for the following reasons:
1. Development of the site did not comply with local planning policy.
2. The design of the two dwellings was unacceptable and out of character.
3. There would be adverse impact on highway safety.
4. There would be severe harm to local residential amenity, including loss of light and overlooking to his property.
5. The proposed development would impact on water supply and drainage to the immediate area.
6. There would be a negative impact on trees and biodiversity.
18. The Committee approved the planning application in June 2021. Conditions were attached relating to highway safety, trees and landscaping.
19. Mr X complained to the Council and expressed concerns about Officer J having previously opposed development on a single dwelling on the same site.
20. In response, the Council explained that a result of the 2019 permission for a single dwelling, the 2020 application had to be considered in the context of the site having the benefit of outline consent for residential development. This was a significant material planning consideration. The 2019 permission did not restrict any future applications to a single dwelling.
21. It also confirmed the development was deemed to constitute a form of “infill development” and as such aligned with specific policy requirements.
22. On this basis, the Council did not uphold the complaint. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman only looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.
24. Neighbours may express a view and the Council must consider any comments. The Council must consider the material planning considerations raised. The Council must decide if the objections show it should refuse the application or impose planning conditions to make it acceptable.
25. I do not consider the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with this planning application. I say this because:
1. Officer J, in his report, clearly took account of objections to the application including those made by Mr X set out at paragraph 17 above. The case records show Officer J raised some of the concerns directly with the Applicant, and the outcome of this was reflected in his report.
2. Objectors, including Mr X, were given the opportunity to speak to the Committee. The minutes from this meeting show their concerns were properly understood by the Committee and taken into consideration when making its decision.
3. The Council had regard for the relevant planning policies and development plans. The Council reached a different view to that of Mr X about the applications compliance with local planning policy.
4. The Committee could only consider the application as presented. This was based on outline planning permission having previously been granted. While I understand Mr X’s frustration at the apparent change of position, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
5. Mr X’s concerns about drainage prompted a dialogue between the applicant and the Council. The Council was satisfied with the applicant’s revised proposals and this was explained in Officer J’s report.
6. Mr X’s concerns about trees were also addressed by the applicant to the Council’s satisfaction. Tree and biodiversity issues were dealt with by way of conditions to the planning permission.

Conclusion

26. Planning is a matter of judgement, where the Council weighs different aspects of local and national guidance before coming to a decision. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s judgement the proposal does not adversely impact the amenity of his property and the principal of two dwellings on the development site. However, this does not make the Council’s decision wrong.
27. My overall assessment of the complaint is that Officer J wrote a thorough report that explained and weighed the relevant matters fairly. He recommended granting planning permission having fully considered the facts of the case. Objectors had the opportunity to present their case to the Committee.
28. The impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of Mr X was duly considered, but any adverse impact was not deemed so significant as to warrant refusal of permission. Planning authorities have a wide discretion in making their decisions. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have found the Council acted without fault when deciding a planning application next to Mr X’s property. On this basis I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman