Summary: The complainant says the Council ignored her objections and failed to consider the impact of a planning application on her home. It also failed to ask the Ward Councillor if he wanted the application decided by the Planning Committee. I will not investigate this complaint because we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs J, says the Council ignored her objections and those of the parish council to a neighbour’s planning application. She also complains the Council failed to refer the application to the ward councillor who may have asked for the application to be decided by the planning committee.
2. Mrs J says this causes loss of light to her home. She wants compensation for increased use of electricity.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

4. The Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint if the Council has already provided a reasonable remedy.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the Mrs J and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission is needed for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority.
8. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to give any material consideration in deciding a planning application. The Ombudsman will not come to a view on the merits of the planning application. Local opposition or support for a proposal alone are not grounds for refusing or granting permission.
9. Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows planning applicants the option to submit applications seeking non-material or minor material amendments once planning permission has been granted.
10. There is no statutory definition of non-material or minor amendment. However, the governments ‘Planning Practice Guidance: Flexible Options for Planning Permissions’ says a minor-amendment “…is likely to include any amendment where its scale and/or nature results in a development which is not substantially different from the one which has been approved.”
11. A developer applied for permission to demolish existing cottages and built two new properties on the site next to Mrs J’s home. After following the correct process, the Council decided to grant planning permission.
12. Some time later the developer put in an application to vary the existing planning permission. The Council considered the application and comments, including Mrs J’s objections. However, it noted the principle of development on the site had already been established by the existing planning permission. The only matters for consideration were the proposed changes.
13. The proposed changes included:
• removing a window at the rear south facing ground floor of plot 2
• removing the roof light windows in the south facing roof slope
• infill to provide a garage space
14. The Council prepared a report on the proposal. It noted the changes resulted in moving the location of the new property by 1.5 metres. The southeast corner will be two metres from Mrs J’s boundary. However, the case officer concluded that, while the new property may appear more overbearing, removal of the windows will offset overlooking and the perception of overbearing.
15. The Council agreed with the Case Officer and granted permission to vary the original planning consent.
16. I have not seen any evidence to suggest the Council ignored Mrs J’s objections and those of the parish council. As previously stated, it is for decision makers to decide what weight to give information including objections.
17. The Council recognises that Mrs J had asked for the application to be referred to the Ward Councillor to see if he wanted the Planning Committee to decide the application. It failed to refer the case. This is fault. However, it would have been for the Committee Chair and Vice Chair to accept the referral. The information I have seen shows the Council considered the objections if received before deciding to approve the application. I cannot say that it would not have made the same decision had it been referred to the Committee.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have not seen evidence to show the Council ignored the objections it received for the planning application. Or that it failed to consider the impact of the proposed changes on Mrs J’s home.
19. The failure to ask the Ward Councillor if he wanted the case determined by Committee was fault. The Council has apologised for this which I consider to be a suitable remedy to this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman