Summary: Mrs X said the Council failed to properly consider the impact of development that unacceptably overshadowed and blocked light to her home. We found no fault in how the Council reached its planning decision approving the development.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said, in granting planning permission, the Council failed to properly consider and address the impact of development on her home.
2. Mrs X said the development unacceptably overshadowed and blocked light to her home and garden. Mrs X wanted the Council to negotiate changes to reduce the impact of the development on her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. I:

• considered Mrs X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mrs X about the complaint;
• considered planning information about the development and the Council’s reports on the proposals that are available on its website; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mrs X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. The Council granted planning permission for development near Mrs X’s home. The planning permission included conditions requiring the developers to get the Council’s approval to various details before starting work on site. (When a council approves such details it ‘discharges the condition’.)
7. The developers started work and later applied to the Council to discharge relevant conditions. The Council had concerns about how the details proposed to discharge the conditions affected that part of the site near Mrs X’s home. The Council told the developers that further work on site was at their own risk given its concerns. The developers continued working but discussions led them to change their proposals to overcome the Council’s concerns. The developers then applied to the Council to make various formal changes to the planning permission (‘the Application’).
8. The Council publicised the Application. Mrs X objected to the revised proposals saying, in summary, they had an unacceptable impact on her home. Mrs X also complained to the Council. The Council responded to the complaint, summarising the discussions to change the proposals, and explaining how it would decide the Application.
9. In the months that followed, further discussions took place to resolve concerns raised by residents, including Mrs X, about the Application proposals. This led the developers to modify the proposed changes. However, before the Council approved the Application, works on the site affected those modified proposals. Further discussions took place, and the developers further modified their proposals.
10. Mrs X, whom had been supportive of the original development, was aware of the various discussions and had suggested possible changes to the proposals. Mrs X accepted some of the developers’ modifications sufficiently addressed her concerns. However, when the Council prepared its final report (‘the Report’) on the Application, Mrs X had an unresolved objection to the modified proposals. In summary, Mrs X said a combination of ground works and built development on the site, caused an unacceptable loss of light and privacy and overpowered her home.
11. The Council’s planning officers referred the Application to the Development Control Committee for a decision by councillors. Before the committee meeting, councillors visited the site and viewed Mrs X’s home. Mrs X then spoke at the Committee meeting. Having heard from Mrs X and considered the Report, the Committee approved the Application, as modified. The Council then issued a revised planning permission for the development.

Consideration

12. For most people, their home and the area in which they live is important. Mrs X’s concerns about the development, which she had supported until changes took place after the grant of planning permission, were understandable. Mrs X said some councillors on the Council’s Development Control Committee agreed the modified development had an unacceptable impact on her home. So, Mrs X felt badly let down when, at their committee meeting, the Council approved changes to the development.
13. However, we are not an appeal body, and I cannot hold any view on the merits of the Application proposals, as modified, and their impact on Mrs X’s home. My role was to consider whether in processing the Application, which approved the changes that Mrs X found unacceptable, the Council acted with fault. So, how did the Council process the Application?
14. Councils must publicise planning applications so local people have an opportunity to comment on development proposals. Developers are entitled to have their properly made planning applications determined by the local council as planning authority. However, some developers may decide to change their proposals, for example, to overcome residents’ objections.
15. Here, the evidence showed the Council publicised the Application. Mrs X also took the opportunity to object to the Application including when its proposals were later modified after discussions between the developers and the Council. So, the evidence showed no fault here.
16. Councils must decide planning applications in line with their development plan policies unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, and not private matters such as property prices or developers’ behaviour. Examples of material considerations are overlooking, traffic generation and noise. So, where residents object to proposals on land use and planning grounds, councils must take their comments into account in deciding an application.
17. Here, the evidence showed the Council took account of residents’ planning representations, including Mrs X’s objections to the Application. For example, the Report summarised third party comments, including those from Mrs X. The Report also considered the impact of the Application proposals on residents’ amenities and expressly referred to Mrs X’s home. And, while not a legal requirement, both Council officers and councillors on the Development Control Committee visited the site, and viewed Mrs X’s home, before determining the Application. Mrs X also attended the Council’s Development Control Committee. And before councillors determined the Application, Mrs X told them, in summary, about the impact of the proposals on her home. So, on the evidence, I could not find the Council failed to take account of Mrs X’s objections in determining the Application.
18. The Report also followed the format used by many councils when determining a planning application. It set out the proposals, summarised representations, and identified both relevant planning policies and key planning issues for determining the Application. The Report also gave the planning officer’s assessment of the Application proposals against the relevant planning policies and other material planning considerations. I therefore saw no fault in the process here.
19. The Report concluded the Application proposals, as modified, were acceptable and in line with relevant planning policies, including the policy about residential amenities. Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s assessment and considered the proposals unacceptable. The Council and Mrs X are each entitled to their view. However, without evidence of fault in how the Council processed the Application, I could not question the Council’s decision notwithstanding the strength of Mrs X’s opposing view.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I completed my investigation finding no evidence of fault in how the Council decided the Application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman