Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council publicised and considered Mr X’s neighbour’s planning applications. We have not seen enough fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consult him as a directly affected neighbour before it approved a planning application. He also says the Council failed to consider:
• Removal of trees to enable the development.
• Removal of trees from conservation areas is not permitted.
• Extensions should not fill private gardens; and
• The development is too close to his property.
2. Mr X wants the Council to require the neighbour to:
• Redesign the new property as a bungalow; or
• Mitigate the impact on his home by removing windows or obscuring glass and provide soundproof fencing.

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. The Council received an application from Mr X’s neighbour to change their property, demolish their garage and build a new property in their grounds.
7. The Council confirms a notice was placed close to the site, published details of the application in the local paper and placed the application on its website.
8. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives. However, officers will not enter into a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
9. From the information I have seen, the Council fulfilled its statutory duty on publicising the application.
10. Mr X did not comment on the application. However, the planning officer’s report refers to:
• The reasons it is satisfied the proposal meets its policies on location and design. And the local neighbourhood plan.
• The reasons it is satisfied the proposal meets its policies on conservation areas.
• The impact of the development on Mr X’s home. The Officer is satisfied there will be no overlooking as the window in the rear elevation of the existing property serves a bathroom and has obscure glazing. They considered the separation distance between Mr X’s home and the new property enough not to cause overlooking.
11. The Council approved the application with several conditions. Including a condition requiring details of the boundary treatments to be presented for approval before the new property is occupied.
12. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council. However, having considered the impact on Mr X’s home and the relevant national and local policies, it is a decision it is entitled to make.
13. The neighbour applied to vary the planning permission. This was to allow single storey extensions and loft rooms to both the existing and proposed homes.
14. The principle of the changes to the existing house and the building of a new one was established by granting the original planning permission. Therefore the Council could only consider the proposed changes. It decided as the new plans for the loft rooms contained roof lights, this would not cause a loss of privacy. Therefore it had limited concerns with neighbouring amenity. It approved the application, again with a condition on boundary treatments.
15. Having considered the impact on Mr X’s home the Council was entitled to make this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised and considered his neighbour’s planning application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman