Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for two new properties next to the complainant’s property. The Planning Officer report shows the Council considered the relevant legislation and the objections received before deciding to approve the application. Without fault in the process, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council ignored objections when it approved an application for two new homes on a plot next to a property she owns. She says this has compromised the privacy to her property and the character of the area.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning controls are for the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
6. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies, unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
7. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”. The NPPF says this presumption means, when deciding planning applications:

“…where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless…any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in [the NPPF] taken as a whole.”

8. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
9. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.

My findings

10. The Council received an application to demolish a house and build two three-storey houses on a site next to a property owned by Mrs X. It publicised the application. Mrs X objected on the grounds of:
• Noise and disturbance
• Loss of privacy
• Loss of light
• Overbearing
• Lack of separation distance
• Location on a blind bend
11. The case 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 Mrs X.
12. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer refers specifically to Mrs X’s property and decided the impact of the proposal was not so significant as to warrant refusal. And the application would not have a significant harmful impact on the character of the area. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role, as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning policies; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
14. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if he investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because, as there is no evidence of fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman