Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in considering and granting permission for a planning application to develop land near his home. We have not found fault in how the Council considered the application. We have not upheld Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for land to be developed near to his home. Specifically, he complains that:
• the Council has not properly considered the application as a whole;
• the Council has failed to adequately consider how the development will affect his personal amenity and enjoyment of his home and garden; and
• the Council has not adequately allowed him to raise objections to the plans submitted by the developer.
2. Mr X says this has caused him considerable distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have considered information the Council provided and also viewed various documents available on the Council’s planning portal.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning permission

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations.
9. Planning considerations include things like:

• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.

10. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.

11. General planning policies may pull in different directions (for example, in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities).
12. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
13. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
14. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid material planning reasons.

What happened

15. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
16. In autumn of 2022, a developer submitted plans to build on land near to Mr X’s home.
17. In 2023, anyone wishing to object to the proposed development was given the opportunity to do so. Mr X made detailed comments and objections to the plans online.
18. A planning officer from the Council wrote a detailed report to present to the planning committee. Amongst other things, this noted:
• objections made by the Parish Council;
• consultation responses and comments from relevant parties such as its own environmental health department, highways and the local water company;
• a summary of objections made by interested local people;
• policies considered as part of the report; and
• considerations about public open spaces forming part of the development.
19. The report recommended that permission be granted. It set out conditions the officer believed should be included when granting permission and why.
20. After a committee meeting to consider the officer’s report, the Council granted planning permission in Spring 2024. The Council produced a decision notice (the notice) to explain it had approved the application but with conditions attached.
21. Some of the conditions related to boundary treatments such as walls and fences. The notice said that works would not begin until details about this had been seen and approved by the Council. It also said any boundary treatments should take into account neighbour amenity in height, location and design.
22. A week after the notice was issued, the Council sent a formal response to complaints Mr X had made to it. Some of Mr X’s complaints were about how fencing to protect the privacy in his garden would be needed and whether the Council had correctly considered the application.
23. In its complaint response, the Council explained that before the application had been approved:
• it had posted notices on site;
• letters were sent to those living nearby to advise of the application;
• it had consulted with multiple other authorities;
• it had received numerous objections about the proposed plans; and
• it had held a public planning meeting.
24. The Council also said:
• it had satisfied itself other issues Mr X had raised had been appropriately considered or dealt with;
• boundary treatments had been covered in the decision notice;
• planning officers were aware of his concerns and would take them into consideration when the developer applied to discharge the conditions relating to this in the notice; and
• that the application had been considered through a planning committee site visit, the officer’s report and presentation to the committee at the meeting to decide on the application.
25. The response signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not make planning decisions. Rather, we consider whether there was any fault in how the Council acted when considering any relevant legislation, guidance or local policy in relation to the matters concerned.

How the Council considered the application

27. I have viewed relevant planning documentation available on the Council’s planning portal, including objections raised by Mr X, reports from other authorities such as the local water company and flood authority, the officer’s report and the decision notice to grant permission.
28. The officer’s report is sufficiently detailed and shows an understanding of the site and the proposed plans. In the report, it is clear the Council sought comments from a wide range of authorities and other interested parties. This allowed it to assess the viability of the development and how it would affect those living nearby and the local area. It is clear the officer gave consideration to a range of local and national planning policies when considering the application. It is clear the officer considered objections and comments raised.
29. The minutes of the planning committee meeting show matter were considered and there was unanimous agreement to grant permission.
30. The decision notice is also evidence the planning committee was satisfied the report presented to it allowed it to make an informed decision on the application.
31. I am satisfied there is no evidence to say the Council acted with any fault in how the application was processed and decided upon. It took material planning considerations into account and made its decision accordingly before confirming this in the decision notice.

Effect to Mr X’s personal amenity

32. Mr X complains the Council failed to adequately consider how the development would affect his personal amenity and enjoyment of his home and garden. Mr X was particularly concerned that people would be able to easily see into his garden.
33. The officer’s report notes concerns and objections about a loss of privacy for those living next to the development.
34. The Council’s complaint response to Mr X confirmed that conditions had been attached to the planning permission which meant boundary treatments would need to be approved by the Council. It also said the notice should take into account neighbour amenity when considering height, location and design of any treatments.
35. This is enough to satisfy me the Council sufficiently considered Mr X’s amenity when writing the officer’s report and attaching conditions to the planning decision. I am therefore satisfied the Council did not act with any fault here.

Ability to raise objections

36. Mr X complains the Council did not adequately allow him to raise objections to the plans submitted by the developer.
37. In my telephone call with Mr X. he said he had not had the ability to voice his concerns at the planning committee meeting. He explained the Council had allowed one representative of the local residents to speak for a maximum of three minutes and that somebody else was nominated to speak. He said he also asked the chairperson of the planning committee meeting if he could speak at the meeting and was told this would not be allowed.
38. Regardless of this, Mr X was aware of his ability to log objections to the plans. He submitted detailed objections and comments online over a long period of time. The officer’s report shows objections were considered as it summarised them and advised that all were available to view online.
39. In the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied Mr X was aware of and took the opportunity to raise multiple objections and make comments about his concerns linked to the development. I am satisfied the officer’s report shows these were considered as part of the planning process. I therefore consider there was no fault in the Council’s actions here and that Mr X had sufficient opportunity to make his views known.
40. Mr X also had concerns about whether the Council took into account the objections he shared with the Parish Council. Evidence shows the Council noted Parish Council objections in the officer’s report. I am therefore satisfied there is no fault in the Council’s actions here.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have now completed my investigation. I do not uphold this complaint.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman