Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about apparent inconsistency in the Council’s decisions on planning applications. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the applications. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about inconsistency in the Council’s planning decisions. He says the Council allowed planning applications when it had previously rejected an application covering the same development.
2. Mr X says the Council has set a worrying precedent for the area. And he will suffer from the noise and impact from the construction work for a year.
3. He wants the Council to reconsider the applications. Alternatively, the Council should apply a condition to the original permission preventing such extensions from co-existing with any future extensions erected under general permitted development rights.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Planning controls 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.
8. 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.
9. 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:
10. “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.”
11. When planning authorities receive planning applications, they must consider relevant planning matters in reaching a decision. These may be obvious or come from members of the public who comment on the applications. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 specifies a range of relevant planning matters. Among these are the possible effects on the amenity of neighbours. This can be in terms of size, scale, light pollution, odour, loss of privacy and others. While the planning authority must consider all those that are relevant, it has discretion about what weight to give to them. The Ombudsman’s role is only to consider whether the planning authority acted correctly by considering relevant planning matters, not to reach her own view of them where there is no fault.
12. The original planning application for the site next to Mr X’s home was not refused because of overdevelopment. The following applications were not called in by local councillors and met the published criteria for the decision to be made by officers under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
13. The Council’s Planning Officer’s reports describe the proposals it received, the relevant national and local planning policies. They also included a summary of the objections received, including those made by Mr X. They note why the planning officer considered the proposals overcame the objections and recommended approval. A senior officer agreed with the recommendations and approved the applications. The Council did not consider it appropriate to include a condition to restrict permitted development rights. This is a decision it is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable. This is after consideration of local and national planning policies; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
15. 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.
16. Also, Mr X wants the planning application reconsidered or new conditions added to the existing permissions. The Ombudsman cannot require this and therefore we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman