Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault leading to significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss B, says:
• the Council failed to tell her about a planning application for a site close to her home
• the Council failed to erect a site notice
• the Council failed to consider overlooking of her property; and
• the applicant used to work for the Council.
2. She says her home is now overlooked, she has lost privacy and sunlight and her property has lost value. Miss B wants the neighbour’s extension removed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss B and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made.
7. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement says it will place a site notice near application sites or write to the occupiers or owners of property which adjoin those sites.
8. Although the site is visible from Miss B’s home, it is located on the opposite side of a road which runs behind her garden. Her property does not share a boundary with the site. The Council told Miss B’s next-door neighbour about the application as he lives directly opposite the site.
9. There is no fault in the Council not telling Miss B about the application.
10. In response to Miss B’s complaint, the Council confirms the development site has open land to the side and rear. The owners of the land were unknown. The Council acknowledges it should have erected a site notice. This is fault.
11. Miss B’s neighbour who lives closer to the site than she does was notified. The Planning Officer visited the site and wrote a report of the proposal. The report includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from Miss B’s neighbour which included:
• the glazed gable will overlook the garden and rear of their property
• the proposed scheme will dominate the street scene
• the existing roofline minimises obstruction of views beyond
12. This set out the key issues of the application including impact on neighbouring amenity.
13. The report referred to the impact on the Miss B’s neighbours (Mr X)’s property. It notes the development site is at a higher level than Mr X’s neighbour. It also states the gable is angled towards the road, rather than directly opposite the neighbours’ property. And the closest neighbour’s rear wall was about 26 metres from the proposed gable. This, together with some existing overlooking from another neighbour, led the Planning Officer to conclude that overlooking from the new proposal would not be exacerbated to such a degree as to warrant refusing the application.
14. The Planning Officer also considered the impact of the development on the character of the area and concluded the development would not be out of character.
15. The Planning Officer recommended approving the application. A senior Officer agreed, and the application was approved under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
16. While Miss B clearly disagrees with the Council’s decision, that does not make it wrong. It is for planning officers and/or committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
17. The Planning Officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the Officer has made their recommendation. The Officer decided the application would not have a significant harmful impact on the character of the area. Nor would overlooking be increased to a degree warranting refusal. This is a professional judgement and decision the Officer is entitled to make.
18. I understand the Council now considers it should have erected a site notice.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint. It does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate because:
• the Council considered the impact of the proposal on a property closer to the site than Miss B’s
• it also considered the impact on the character of the area.
20. Therefore, I do not consider the lack of a site notice caused Miss B significant personal injustice.
21. The former ownership of the development site and loss of property value are not material planning considerations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman