Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning committee’s consideration of and decision on his neighbour’s extension application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next door to a property whose owner has sought planning permission to extend into the roof and to the front of their property.
2. Mrs X complains the Council’s Planning Committee improperly granted the planning permission to her neighbour by failing to follow proper procedure when considering the application, failing to take into account objections, and not allowing the parish council to speak at the meeting.
3. Mrs X says the development results in overlooking into her property from rear roof windows and a window on the side of the front extension. She says the development is forcing her to move house. She considers the extensions have a negative impact on the street scene and is concerned it will set a precedent for future developments in the area. Mrs X says she has spent time and been caused inconvenience by having to keep up with various applications made by her neighbour, and by having to complain to the Council. She is upset by events at the planning meeting.
4. Mrs X wants the Council and planning committee to consider the application again. She wants this new process to include site visits, further consultation of neighbours and the parish council, the opportunity for the parish council to speak at the committee meeting, and for that meeting to be conducted properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

6. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mrs X, relevant online planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s planning officers recommended approval of the neighbour’s planning application. The matter went before the planning committee’s elected Members who made the decision to grant the permission.
9. Mrs X raises concerns about comments made and actions taken at the planning committee meeting. But the evidence shows the committee Members had before them the relevant information to make their planning decision, including all written objections and the planning officer’s report. Mrs X’s husband Mr X also contributed by presenting his objections orally to the committee, as well as in writing. The committee considered the relevant information to reach their planning decision. There is not enough evidence that the concerns Mrs X raises affected the committee when making their decision to grant the permission in a way which would justify an investigation.
10. The committee assessed the aspects of the proposed development which had most potential to affect Mrs X’s property. Members considered the overlooking from the rear roof windows into her property. Officers had taken the view there was already overlooking from existing windows in the neighbour’s property and the additional windows did not give grounds for refusal. The planning committee also considered the overlooking from the window in the side elevation of the front extension. Officers’ view was the relationships and distances of about eight metres between the new window and the nearest windows in Mrs X’s house meant the proposal was acceptable. They did not consider the new window would result in such amenity harm to her property that it would warrant a refusal.
11. If members had disagreed with officers on these or any other material planning matters, it was open to them to defer their decision on the application and seek further information, or vote against the officers’ recommendation and refuse the permission. In respect of the front extension window, Members determined there should be a condition applied to the permission so it would be obscure glazed, with a fanlight opening at the top of the frame. They did this to further prevent the possibility of overlooking from that window affecting Mrs X’s property. Members voted on the application, with that condition added, and voted in favour. That was a decision they were entitled to make.
12. Mrs X says the committee was wrong to not allow a parish council representative to speak to the meeting. That decision about the conduct of the meeting was at the discretion of the committee chair. In any event, committee Members had before them the parish council’s written reasons for their objection to the application. They were able to take those views into account as part of their deliberations. There is not enough evidence that the parish council not being able to express their views orally as well as in writing had a bearing on the committee’s consideration of the application or on its planning decision.
13. We cannot go behind a committee’s decision unless there has been fault in the process followed which, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning committee’s process here which could have affected its decision to warrant an investigation. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the committee’s decision. But it is not fault for a committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
14. Mrs X wants the Council to rerun the planning process for her neighbour’s application. Even if we were to find fault in the previous planning process, we could not achieve this outcome for Mrs X. We cannot order councils to repeat planning processes. That we cannot obtain the outcome Mrs X seeks is further grounds for us not to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:

• there is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant an investigation;
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman