Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s and Ms Y’s complaints about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development near their homes. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating, we could not add to the Council’s responses to the complainants, and we cannot achieve the outcome they seek.

The complaint

1. Ms X and Ms Y are neighbours. They complain about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a house to be built on the land next to their homes. Ms X says for them both the proposed property is overbearing and not in keeping with the local area. She also says there is a breach of the approved planning application conditions affecting the trees and hedges on the site having an impact on her garden, and no ecological survey was completed. Ms X complains about the actions of the Council within the planning process and on enforcement of the approval and conditions, as well as a lack of communication from the Council. They would both like the Council to revoke the planning permission and the land to be returned to a garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. The planning officer’s report to the committee which decided the application shows the Council considered Ms X’s and Ms Y’s views the proposed property would be overbearing and not in keeping with the local area. It set out their objections in bullet form. It noted there may be a loss of trees, but the area is not in a conservation area and none of the trees have a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The report said there is no defined pattern of development and the proposed property would be in keeping with existing developments along the High Street. It confirms the officers are satisfied the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on neighbours’ amenity would be acceptable. There is no evidence of fault here, and Ms X and Ms Y’s opposing view does not amount to such evidence.
6. The Council granted planning permission in October 2020, and in April 2021 approved the discharge of conditions requiring a soft landscaping plan regarding vegetation on, and adjacent to, the development site and protection of local wildlife.
7. The Council says the wording of the landscaping condition fell short of its usual standards. However, it is clear from a close reading the intention was not to require all trees and hedgerows on the site to be retained. It required trees and hedgerows that are to be retained be protected during development, and replaced if any die within five years. Although Ms X and Ms Y are unhappy all trees and hedgerows previously on the property are not being retained, the Council has explained the reason for this and confirmed no further action is warranted. Any damage to the complainants’ hedges, above or below ground, is a civil law matter rather than a planning one. There is no evidence of material fault by the Council on this point.
8. Ms X says the developers have not retained the hedges and trees on the development site in accordance with condition 9 in the planning application. The condition does not require all hedges or trees to be retained. Any vegetation on the development site could have been removed without the need for planning permission, and hedges growing onto the development site could be trimmed back to the boundary under common law. This would fall outside the planning application process and means there was never a guarantee all vegetation on the site would remain.
9. The Council confirmed an ecological survey is not needed but ecology was a material consideration when the application was considered. Planning officers sought advice from the Council’s qualified in-house ecological consultant who agreed condition 8 should be discharged in full. There is no evidence of fault on this point.
10. Ms X has provided email correspondence between Council officers she obtained through a freedom of information request. She considers these emails show the development is unacceptable. The emails amount to a discussion between officers while assessing a previous set of drawings, which the applicant later changed. Other emails Ms X refers to support the amended design for approval, and do not suggest the committee’s consideration was a foregone conclusion as Ms X and Ms Y think.
11. Ms X and Ms Y are concerned about there being inadequate parking provision. The Council has confirmed the development has appropriate parking for the new home. It approved parking spaces at the front of the existing property, which has been sold without having the front garden converted into parking spaces. The Council says it cannot seek to enforce the condition until the new dwelling is occupied. That is consistent with the terms of the relevant planning condition and we could not add to this by investigating.
12. The Council has considered the request to revoke the planning application and serve a formal stop notice on the development and has explained why it will not do this. I recognise Ms X and Ms Y might disagree, but that is a decision the Council was entitled to make and there is no basis for the Ombudsman to question it.
13. Ms X also complained about the Council’s lack of communication with them. In a planning application process the Council advertises an application and invites comments from the public but this is not a discussion or negotiation. The Council has no duty to reply to comments, only to take them into account in making the planning decision. That is what this Council has done in this case. In any event, if we are not investigating the subject of a complaint, we do not separately investigate the way a council handles complaints or correspondence about it.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s or Ms Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating and we could not add to what the Council has said or achieve the outcome that the complainants are seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman