Summary: Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission without having regard to the Supplementary Planning Document in particular about the size of the extension and the distance between the properties. Mr X says this has caused him distress. We have found no fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission without having regard to the Supplementary Planning Document in particular about the size of the extension and the distance between the properties.
2. Mr X says this caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I have also considered the planning information about the development on the Council’s website.
7. Both Mr X and the Council were invited to provide comments on the draft decision. Any comments received have been considered before a final decision was issued.

Back to top

What I found

8. Most development needs planning permission from the council. And council planning decisions must be in line with their development plan policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest but not private considerations such as the applicant’s behaviour or changes to property prices. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. Planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, promoting residential development and protecting existing residential amenities (living conditions).
9. Before deciding a planning application, the council must publicise it so people may comment on the proposed development. Here, the Council had to publicise the development by either putting up a site notice or sending letters to nearby properties. Peoples’ comments on land use and planning matters will be material planning considerations the council must take into account in deciding applications. Taking into account does not mean the council must agree with the comments.
10. No law says the council must visit a site before deciding a planning application. However, a council planning case officer often will visit the site. The case officer will also usually prepare a report assessing the proposed development against relevant planning policies and other material planning considerations. The report will end with a recommendation to either grant or refuse planning permission. The courts have made clear that officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues;
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are 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.

11. Most planning decisions are made by a senior council officer. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. The senior officer may therefore disagree with the recommendation set out in the case officer’s report.
12. Some councils issue guidance on how they would normally make their decisions and how they generally apply planning policy. The guidance is issued in supplementary planning documents (SPD) and can be found on council websites.
13. 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.
14. Amongst other things, SPD guidance will often set out separation distances between dwellings to protect against overshadowing and loss of privacy.

What happened

15. The Council received and publicised a planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. The development included a side, front and rear extension.
16. A case officer considered the planning application and wrote a report which included:

• A description of the proposal and site;
• A summary of planning history considered relevant;
• Comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• Planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• An appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on residential amenity and highway safety; and
• The officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.

17. Mr X complained to the Council as he felt the case officer’s decision to grant Planning Permission failed to adhere to the guidance of the Boroughs SPD. Mr X said the Council did not consider the size and structure of the development and there would not be a suitable distance between the properties. Mr X also said the case officer’s decision did not take into account the impact on the surrounding residents.
18. The Council responded to the complaint in July 2023 and said the SPD is not planning policy but is guidance. The Council went on to say it believed the case officer had assessed the application and exercised their judgement appropriately.

Analysis

19. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to consider whether there is evidence the Council acted with fault in reaching its planning decision. And, if there is evidence of fault, we consider whether it caused the complainant significant injustice.
20. The case officers report shows they assessed the impact of the siting of the proposed development to neighbouring properties and neighbouring extensions. The report decides the proposed development would not adversely affect neighbouring properties by reason of overbearing appearance, loss of light or loss of privacy.
21. A home is important to most people. I therefore recognised Mr X might have expected a more detailed assessment of the development’s impact on nearby homes. However, the officer report provided evidence the Council considered the issue of the impact of the development on existing nearby homes.
22. The Council must consider each application on its own merits. Here, in processing the application, the Council addressed the planning issue of the development’s impact on nearby properties. Having identified and assessed key planning issues, it was for the Council to decide whether the development was acceptable.
23. Overall, I saw no evidence the Council had not correctly processed the application. And without such evidence I could not question the Council’s planning decision however strongly Mr X might disagree with it.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have found no fault in the Council’s planning decision making.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman