Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr C’s complaint about the presentation of incorrect and misleading information to the planning committee when it granted consent for a housing development close to his home. The committee was given accurate information about the layout, the boundary, and the relationship of the plots to the rear of his home and neighbouring land.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains incorrect and misleading information was before the planning committee when it granted consent for a housing development close to his home; as a result, he is worried his amenities will be affected, particularly from a two-storey house which will share a boundary with his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
6. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation, and noise.
7. 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.
8. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations
9. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Back to top

Outline planning applications and reserved matters

10. Outline planning permission establishes the acceptability of development, subject to the later agreement to details of ‘reserved matters’.
11. Reserved matters may be any, or all, of the following: access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered all the information provided by Mr C, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr C and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

13. Mr C’s home has undeveloped land to its rear. The Council approved an application for outline planning consent, with conditions, and then a reserved matters application. The developers want consent to build houses on this land.
14. Mr C is concerned about information before the planning committee about the proposed plot 1 to the rear of his property. The two properties share a boundary. He argues incorrect and misleading information was put before the committee. This is because he also owns a large area of wooded land to the east of his property. The full extent of the boundary plot 1 shares with land he owns was not, therefore, brought to the planning committee’s attention when it decided the application. This is because the committee was unaware he owned this land as well.
15. I will now deal with each of his complaints:

Boundary with plot 1

16. Mr C claims during the online planning committee meeting, the planning officer wrongly said only 4 metres of plot 1 would share a boundary with his property. Mr C argues the whole of the plot’s boundary is shared with his. In response to my draft decision, he confirmed he owns wooded land to the side of his property which also shares a boundary with plot 1.
17. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the committee minutes state 4 metres of the 50-metre boundary line for the site would be shared between plot 1 and Mr C’s property. The planning officer measured the distance from a scaled drawing when this question was raised during the meeting. The officer checked this distance again in response to our enquiries and confirmed it correct.

Analysis

18. The site plan shows the relationship of Mr C’s property to the four plots that share his rear boundary (plots 1-4). Plot 1 is located at the far eastern end of Mr C’s boundary with his residential property. Only part of its boundary overlaps with this property’s boundary. The rest of its boundary overlaps with the wooded land Mr C owns.
19. I found no fault on this complaint. It is clear from the plan only part of plot 1’s boundary overlaps with Mr C’s residential boundary. Most of plot 1’s boundary is shared with the wooded land next to Mr C’s property which he owns. I see no reason to doubt the measurement given by the planning officer and note the planning committee had access to the site plans which clearly show the relationship of plot 1 to Mr C’s property, and the wooded land, and the amount of the boundary overlap.
20. I saw nothing in Mr C’s written representations to the planning committee that explained he also owned the neighbouring land to the east of his property. Even if this had been made clear, I am not satisfied it would have made any difference to the committee’s decision. This is because the committee had sight of the plans and could see what land plot 1 shared a boundary with.

Single storey

21. A pre-commencement condition of the outline planning consent said all new dwellings to the rear of Mr C’s property were to be single storey only. Mr C told the committee the reserved matters application provided details proposing a 2-storey house on plot 1 instead of a single storey house. He argued this breached the condition.
22. Mr C said a senior planning officer at the meeting told the committee the condition only applied to new dwellings which were directly behind Mr C’s property. The senior officer told the committee plot 1 was not directly behind his property.
23. Mr C also argued the committee failed to properly consider Local Policy 26 when it reached its decision. This policy states the amenities of all existing and future occupants of neighbouring land and buildings may reasonably be expected to enjoy must not be unduly harmed by, or as a result of, development.
24. The Council provided a copy of the site plan and pointed out this shows plot 1 is not directly behind Mr C’s dwelling. It explained the important wording in the condition is, ‘directly to the rear of dwellings’. The planning officer told the committee that while plots 2, 3, and 4 were directly to the rear of a dwelling, plot 1 was not.

Analysis

25. I found no fault on this complaint. In reaching this conclusion, I took the following in to account:
1. I have read the condition which refers to single storey dwellings on plots ‘directly to the rear of dwellings’ which it then lists and includes Mr C’s property;
2. I have seen the site plan which was before the committee. This shows the relationship of Mr C’s dwelling to plots 1-4 whose boundaries overlap his. All proposed dwellings are angled to the right and away from his dwelling. Plot 1’s proposed property is on the far eastern end of his boundary. It does not face his dwelling. It is angled away from it towards the wooded land Mr C owns;
3. I am satisfied the committee was aware of the condition and the relationship of plot 1 to Mr C’s dwelling. I cannot say the conclusion it reached after interpretating the condition and viewing the relationship of plot 1 to Mr C’s dwelling, amounts to fault. This is because it received information from both the planning officer and a senior planning officer about whether the plot was directly behind his dwelling. In addition, it also had sight of the plans which showed their relationship. The condition was about Mr C’s dwelling, not the area of wooded land he owns; and
4. I am also satisfied the committee took Local Policy 26 in to account when it considered this application. This is because the planning officer’s report includes references to the scale and appearance of the development, its layout, and the impact on residential amenities, for example. The policy is directly referred to in the planning officer’s report to the committee and I also note the policy is referred to in several of the conditions made.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr C’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman