Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. There was no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. Ms X said the Council should not have approved the application, because:
• there were objections from neighbours relating to alleged criminal behaviour by the applicant, who she said uses existing windows in their home for unlawful and intimidating purposes; and
• the increased size of the house would put pressure on off-street parking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with Ms X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• the applicant’s personal circumstances;
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
10. Some councils issue guidance on how they would normally make their decisions and how they generally apply planning policy. The guidance is sometimes found in the local plan itself or issued in separate supplementary planning documents.
11. Planning guidance and policy should not be treated as if it creates a binding rule that must be followed. Councils must take account their policy along with other material planning considerations.
12. Amongst other things, guidance will often set out separation distances between dwellings to protect against overshadowing and loss of privacy.
13. Although guidance can set different limits, councils normally allow 21 metres between directly facing habitable rooms (such as bedrooms, living and dining rooms) or 12 metres between habitable rooms and blank elevations or elevations that contain only non-habitable room windows (such as bathrooms, kitchens and utility rooms). An ‘elevation’ is the face or view of it from one side shown in a plan.

Background

14. Ms X’s neighbour submitted a planning application to extend their home. The house is across a street from Ms X’s home, with a separation distance of about 30 metres.
15. The Council’s planning case officer considered the application and wrote a report which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from neighbours, including Ms X;
• comments from other consultees, including the Highway Authority, which did not object to the application;
• details of planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on neighbouring amenity and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
16. The application was approved by the Council.
17. The neighbour submitted an application for a revised plan, which included a dormer window on the rear elevation. This application has not yet been decided.
18. Ms X believes the Council should have considered allegations of criminal behaviour she submitted and that it should have acted on it. She believes the Council could and should have used this information to require her neighbour to fit non-opening, obscured glazed windows. Ms X would like the Ombudsman to require the Council to make sure this happens.
19. Ms X said the Council is under a duty of care to ensure her safety and the safety of other residents in situations like this.
20. Ms X also believes that the Council should have given significant weight to the high number of reports made about alleged parking infringements

My findings

21. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault in the decision-making process and where we find it, we decide whether it caused a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
22. Ms X sent comments about the neighbour’s criminal activity and is disappointed it did not act to require non-opening, obscure glazed windows. Ms X would like us to recommend the Council to ensure changes to the windows to protect her privacy - we can only recommend a remedy like this, if we find evidence of fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.
23. When deciding planning applications, the Council is only able to take account of policies on its local development plan and other material planning considerations. Generally, the personal circumstances of applicants are not material planning considerations. Evidence of criminal activity is a matter for the police.
24. Ms X believes the Council was wrong to approve an application that will cause pressure on the local highway network. The Highway Authority considered the application and advised the Council it did not object. The Council said that its Highways Authority is aware of the large number of allegations made about parking infringements, but they did not affect its judgement about the planning application.
25. Before it made its decision, the Council considered the application plans, planning policy and guidance, comments from the public (including Ms X’s), comments from consultees, including the Highways Authority. The Council followed the decision-making process we expect and so I find no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I completed my investigation as there was no evidence fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman