Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council decision to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council knowingly approved her neighbour’s planning application based on incorrect information. She also says the Council ignored her objections.
2. She wants the Council to withdraw the planning permission or insist what is built maintains a four-metre distance to her home. She also wants an apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. Most development needs planning permission from the council. Councils must consider each planning application on its own merits. They must also decide applications in line with relevant policies in their development plans unless material planning considerations indicate they should not. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest but not private matters. Examples of material considerations are traffic generation, overlooking and noise. The developer’s personal conduct and the view from peoples’ homes and potential changes to house prices are not material planning considerations.
7. Councils publicise planning applications so people may comment on development proposals. Peoples’ comments on development and land use grounds will be material planning considerations which councils must take into account in deciding applications. Taking account of a representation does not mean a council must agree with it.
8. A planning case officer may prepare a report assessing the development proposals against relevant policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to approve or refuse planning permission. The courts have made clear that case 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.
9. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers but councillors on the planning committee decide some applications. A council’s constitution (working rules) will set out when councillors must or may decide an application.
10. We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council decision if there is fault in the decision-making processes followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a council’s view with our or someone else’s opinion. So, we consider the processes councils have followed when making their decisions.

My findings

11. The Council received an application from Ms X’s neighbour to extend their property. Ms X objected to the proposal. Her objections included confirmation that the separation distance between her and her neighbour’s homes is half a metre less than the distance stated on the plans.
12. The planning officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes:
• a summary of Ms X’s objections; and
• relevant national and local planning policies.

The officer also explained why the proposal overcomes Ms X’s objections. They acknowledged that her home will suffer some overshadowing, loss of outlook and the new extension will have some dominance over her property. However, the officer advised the windows affected serve her kitchen, utility room, toilet, and bathroom. They consider there is sufficient distance to prevent an unreasonable impact on Ms X’s home. And there will be no overlooking.

13. The Council has acknowledged the separation distance between Ms X’s home and her neighbour is 0.5 metres less than as stated on the plans. It confirms the officer measured from the scaled plans provided by the applicant.
14. Responsibility for properly and accurately completing an application for planning permission rests with the applicant or their agent. And it is a criminal offence to make a false or materially misleading statement knowingly or recklessly in an ownership certificate. So, generally councils may accept information provided by an applicant, or their agent, as correct.
15. However, the planning officer also visited the site and was aware of the location of Ms X’s home in relation to the development site. The windows which will be impacted by the development are all non-habitable save for the kitchen. And a separation distance of 3.6 metres will remain between the properties.
16. Based on the information I have seen I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedures when processing the planning application. Officers also considered Ms X’s objections, although it did not agree with them. We cannot prefer Ms X’s view of the application over the Councils. Such matters are, to an extent, subjective.
17. The planning officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable and has explained in their report why they consider the development will comply with the relevant requirements. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely I could find fault.
18. Ms X wants the Council to withdraw the planning permission or insist the neighbour ensures a four metre gap is preserved between the properties. This in effect would require a change to the planning permission. Neither course of action is something the Ombudsman can require of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the planning application. And we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman