Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact of a development on her property and the conservation area. We found the case officer’s report for the application was insufficiently detailed, which was fault by the Council, but it is unlikely this led to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of a development on her house and garden and on the Conservation Area. She also complained there seemed to be irregularities in the planning process. Mrs X complains the property will be overbearing and particularly affect her garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 spoke to Mrs X, considered her complaint and the information she provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint. I also obtained documents from the Council’s online planning files. I took account of planning guidance and legislation.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Scheme of Delegation

6. Annex C of the Council’s constitution states that decisions on planning applications (including those where written objections have been received) may be delegated to officers, but only if:
• Agreement to a delegated decision has been requested in writing from the Ward Member; and;
• No written request has been made by Ward Members to ‘call the application in’ for consideration by the Development Management Committee within a prescribed period.
7. The Scheme of delegation states, if a Ward Member is unavailable for consultation (for whatever reason, including where a Member has an interest in the application) then they should nominate an alternative Member to carry out this role.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

8. The NPPF states that local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by development proposals. They should take this information into account when considering the impact of development on a heritage asset.

The Conservation Area Management Plan

9. Mrs X’s house is within a conservation area. The relevant management plan states there has been little new development in the conservation area. It says ‘Any new construction or alteration will need to be of the highest quality and design and in accordance with central government guidance as well as SHDC publication New Work in Conservation Areas. This standard should also apply equally within the 50m buffer zone and prominent sites where views into and out of the conservation area are affected…’. The plan states new development will be scrutinised for detail and account will be taken of the history of the site, character of surrounding buildings and its contribution to the townscape.

What Happened

10. In mid-2022, one of Mrs X’s neighbours submitted a planning application to build a house on a small site which bordered part of her garden. The Council notified her and others and during the initial consideration of the application the case officer (Officer A) visited Mrs X’s home. Mrs X says Officer A assured her the application would not be approved.
11. The Highways Authority objected to the application and recommended refusal. This was because of access and visibility on a major road, insufficient parking and an unsuitable turning space.
12. There was a delay before the application was considered further. In 2023, the Council re-allocated the application to a different case officer to determine (Officer B). This was because the Officer A had a high caseload. The Council says Officer A discussed the application with Officer B and explained the concerns she had.
13. Officer B carried out his own site visit and considered the application in Autumn 2023. The Council says Officer B took site visit photographs but these could not be provided as they had not been retained. It provided undated, handwritten notes which it said Officer B made at the time of his visit. The notes briefly described the site and surroundings. Mrs X’s property was not specifically referred to. The notes stated one of the immediate neighbours was the principle concern, but it noted ‘other properties further away and set lower’.
14. Officer B’s report on the application noted that since their initial comments, the Highway Authority had received more information about the access which they found acceptable. They commented that they did not wish to pursue concerns about the number of parking spaces, so they no longer objected.
15. Officer B noted the Historic Environment team supported the application subject to a programme of archaeological work. His report summarised objections received and explained his view on the key issues. These included the principle of the development of a house on the site, the design, heritage impact, neighbour amenity and highways issues.
16. Officer B noted the relevant council policies and determined the principle of a property on the site was acceptable. His report described the dwelling and identified the internal space was of an appropriate size. However, the external amenity space was below what the Council policy required. He explained his view that, given the limits of the site, on balance, this was acceptable.
17. The report identified that the site was on the border of, but not within the conservation area. Officer B stated he had assessed the design approach (the appearance of the property) elsewhere in the report when considering heritage issues. Under this heading the officer stated Heritage Officers considered the proposal was of a satisfactory design and the development would visually improve the site, and therefore, the conservation area.
18. Heritage Officers comments were not on the Council’s online planning file. The Council told us it had no written record of the Heritage Officers’ views. It explained to us that Officer B discussed the application with two Heritage Officers. One of the officers sent an email to Officer B proposing conditions that should be applied which the Council sent to us. The Council suggested, by providing a list of conditions, the Heritage Officer confirmed the proposal was acceptable with regard to design and impact to the conservation area. This was not stated in the email.
19. Mrs X’s house is listed. The house itself, is some distance from the site, but her garden shares a boundary with the site. Officer B clearly considered the impact of the proposed development on the closest neighbouring property. However, the report makes no reference to the impact on Mrs X’s property and garden. The Council told us Officer B verbally confirmed since that he did take into account the relationship of Mrs X’s property and the development, but there is no contemporaneous written record of this.
20. Officer B noted the Highway Authority’s initial concerns and latest position. He noted the inability to meet the parking standard was a disadvantage of the application but concluded the development would improve the street scene. On balance he considered the benefit of the scheme outweighed the shortfall in parking.
21. The application was referred to a Ward Member. As they had declared an interest in the application, it was passed on to a different Ward Member. They gave authorisation for the decision to be made by officers, subject to an additional condition regarding biodiversity. There was then a delay until the Council issued the decision notice approving the application. The Council explained this was due to the resourcing of relevant administrative roles.

Was there fault by the Council

22. The Ombudsman’s role is to review councils’ adherence to procedure in making decisions. We consider if a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear and cogent reasons for its decision.
23. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
24. Mrs X’s house, itself, does not border the site, but her garden does. Her principle concern was the affect of the development to her garden and the setting of her property which is in the conservation area. There is nothing in the report to record how the impact on Mrs X’s property was considered at the time of the decision. I found that Officer B’s report should have referred to Mrs X’s property and explained his view on how it was impacted, particularly as it was listed.
25. Officer B’s report states that Heritage Officers considered the design of the development was satisfactory and that the development visually improved the site, and therefore the conservation area. But it does not provide any explanation about how that view was reached or how the design was analysed. The Council had no written record of the Heritage Officer's comments, beyond a list of the conditions they considered appropriate, so no more information is available on the Council’s records to expand on their reasoning. This is poor.
26. I note that the courts have found that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal or controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are principally the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and;
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.
27. However, I found, on balance, the lack of explanation given to Mrs X’s property and the analysis of the building’s design represents fault by the Council. I say this because Mrs X’s house is a listed building within the conservation area and the site is in the conservation area buffer zone. There is insufficient explanation to show how the impact of the development on her property and the conservation area was considered. This is a material consideration.
28. When approving the application, Officer B accepted a lower parking standards and less amenity space than set out in the council’s policy. I understand Mrs X disagreed with this. Councils should consider whether an application meets its policy requirements. However, in cases where applications do not adhere to a policy requirement, they are entitled to consider if there are grounds to exercise discretion. If a council seeks to refuse an application, they need to be satisfied that there are material planning reasons for doing so which are significant enough to justify this decision. Officer B’s report did provide clear enough reasons for his views on the highways and amenity space issues. He was entitled to reach the decisions he did. We cannot question judgements made by officers when they are made properly.

Impact of the fault we identified

29. It was understandable that the lack of detail in Officer B’s report led Miss X to question the outcome. We have found the report lacked detail in some areas. However, this does not automatically mean that, if more explanation had been given, the application would have been refused. I could not say that the issue of the conservation area was not considered at all. The report evidences the conservation area was not ignored (it is referred to briefly in the report). While Officer B’s site visit notes are undated, I am satisfied he carried out a site visit, from which it is likely he was aware of all the surrounding properties when he reached his decision, including Mrs X’s house and garden. So, I found it is unlikely that any shortcomings in detail in the case officer’s report meant that the conservation area was ignored in the decision making process or that Officer B had failed to see and consider Mrs X’s property and her adjoining garden when reaching his view. As a result, I consider, on balance, it is unlikely the decision would have been different, but for the fault we have identified.

Other Issues

30. I recognise that Mrs X was concerned Officer B’s decision to approve the application was different to the opinions that Officer A expressed at a site visit. However, it is possible for officers to take different views on issues before them. This does not constitute fault by the Council. I also note the Highway Authority’s view had changed from their original consultation response.
31. The Council’s scheme of delegation explains the correct process to follow should officers wish to approve a planning application. This is a referral to a Ward Member (or substitute Ward Member). This was followed correctly by the Council. The referral to a substitute Ward Member was not irregular.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There was fault by the Council. This did not lead to significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman