Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled his neighbour’s planning application leading to an unjustifiable decision to grant planning permission.
2. He says because of this he will have an overbearing property built close to his home.

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.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
9. The Council received an application which included building a new house behind Mr X’s home. It publicised the application. Mr X objected.
10. The planning officer visited the site and prepared a report on the proposal which was presented to the Council’s planning committee. Mr X’s family member spoke to the committee, outlining their objections.
11. Having debated the application the committee decided to grant planning permission.
12. Mr X specifically complains the Council:
• Failed to follow its policies on residential amenity, spacing, privacy, landscaping.
• Ignored objections from him, his neighbours, and the Town Council.
• Was biased towards the applicant, giving them undue help and coaching.
• Misused perspective mock images
• Failed to address serious errors in the site plans (including boundary position).
• Downplayed the errors at committee meeting to rush the application through; and
• Visited his home under false pretences to gather information to use against him.
13. Having considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council and the information on the Council’s website:
• The planning officer’s report details the relevant local and national policy and explains why the officer considered the proposal was acceptable.
• The report summarises the objections received and explains why the planning officer considered the proposal overcomes them.
• The Council has a statutory obligation to work proactively with applicants.
• I have seen no evidence the Council misused mock images.
• The boundary position was clarified in the report; and
• I have seen no evidence the application was rushed through.
14. Mr X says the planning officer visited their home after completing their draft report which recommended the application for approval. He says they therefore visited his home under false pretences to gather information to use against him.
15. I have seen no evidence to support this claim. The planning officer was under no obligation to visit Mr X’s home. However, in view of Mr X’s concerns about the impact of the proposal on his home, I cannot say the Council was at fault to visit him to view the development site from his property. The fact the case officer did not consider the impact of the proposal on Mr X’s home in the same way as Mr X does not make the case officer wrong.
16. I understand Mr X is concerned about the quality of the case officer report. However, the courts made it 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 experienced of the issues
• 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; and
• Councils will grant permission where they consider proposals are in line with relevant planning policies and they find no planning reasons of sufficient weight to justify refusal.
17. I am satisfied the Council had enough relevant information to reach a sound decision and properly considered the material planning considerations when doing so including Mr X’s representations. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the development.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve his neighbour’s planning application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman