Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled several planning applications submitted by his neighbour and the delay in its handling of his complaint. We find no fault in how the Council assessed or determined the planning applications, nor in its consideration of the objections raised by Mr X. However, we do find fault in the Council’s complaint handling which caused avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled several planning applications submitted by his neighbour. He specifically said the Council:
1. failed to notify him about two of the applications;
2. did not require the necessary ecological surveys to be completed;
3. failed to consider land drainage and flood risk issues;
4. accepted inaccurate and misleading applications and plans;
5. did not properly assess the impact of the developments on his property, particularly in relation to loss of light and overshadowing;
6. failed to assess the applications in line with relevant national planning guidance and regulations; and
7. disregarded his evidence during a planning committee meeting.
2. Mr X also complained about delays in the Council’s handling of his formal complaints.
3. He says that, as a result of the Council’s actions, the development has caused damage to his property and a significant loss of light to his garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and regulations

Decision making and material considerations

9. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
10. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
11. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
12. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Publicity for planning applications

13. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.

For major development applications, councils must publicise the application by:

• a local newspaper advertisement; and either
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.

14. For all other applications, including minor developments, councils must publicise by either:

• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.

Permitted development

15. Not all development needs planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
16. Some permitted development proposals need an application so the council can decide whether it can or should control certain parts of the development, such as design and materials issues or access to the highway. These applications are known as ‘prior notification’ applications.
17. It is possible to seek formal confirmation from councils that an existing or proposed development or use of land is lawful and so needs no planning permission. If the Council accepts the evidence provided, it can issue a certificate of lawful use to the applicant.
18. This may happen where:

• the Council has already granted planning permission for the use or development;
• a development is ‘permitted development’ and so deemed acceptable because it complies with limits in regulations;
• the development was unlawful, but the time limit for enforcement actions has now passed.

Site visits

19. Council officers and planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using aerial photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.

Case officer reports

20. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
21. However, the courts have made it 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.

Land drainage and planning

22. The impact development might have on land drainage can be a material planning consideration. If land drainage is raised in an objection letter to a planning application, and they are an important planning consideration, we would expect to see evidence to show the Council had taken the issue into account before it made its decision. Without some evidence to show the Council considered the issue, we cannot know whether it has exercised its discretion properly.
23. However, even if we find fault in a failure to consider drainage issues during the planning process, it does not mean we will expect the Council to provide a significant remedy for the consequences. A grant of planning permission does not allow developers to cause damage to their neighbour’s land. Because of this, we would not expect councils to pay compensation caused by the acts or omissions of private individuals. Remedies for these matters are available in the civil courts and tribunals.

What happened

24. Below is a summary of key events based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
25. In 2023, Mr X’s neighbour applied for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) for proposed works to their property. The Council assessed the application and confirmed the development qualified as permitted development.
26. Later that year, the neighbour submitted a planning application (application 1) for further development. The Council sent notification letters to neighbouring properties and invited comments. No objections were received. A case officer produced a report addressing material planning considerations, including design, appearance, and impacts on neighbouring amenity, in line with national and local planning policy. The Council granted planning permission, noting that this approval superseded the earlier LDC.
27. In 2024, the neighbour submitted a retrospective planning application (application 2) for a separate development that had already commenced. The Council again notified neighbours. Objections were received. A case officer visited the site and later completed a report which assessed the proposal in line with national and local planning policy. This addressed the development’s design, appearance, and impact on neighbouring amenity, as well as concerns raised by neighbours about flooding, ecological harm, loss of light and privacy, and prior removal of trees. The Council granted planning permission.
28. Later that year, the neighbour submitted a further application (application 3), which incorporated elements of the earlier applications. This application was referred to the Council’s planning committee which granted planning permission after considering the committee’s report and public objections.
29. In June, Mr X complained to the Council about how it handled the planning applications. He raised concerns around the:
• lack of notification of the LDC and application 1;
• inaccuracies in the application submitted by his neighbour and the case officer report; and
• failure to consider the impact on neighbouring properties amenities including his right of light, ecology harm, flood risk and key planning standards, affecting the assessed impact of the development on his property.
30. In July, the Council responded to the complaint. It confirmed:
• notification letters were sent for the relevant applications;
• a minor typing error in one part of a case officer report did not affect the assessment of the application;
• full consideration as to the impact of loss of light and overshadowing were given;
• the developments were assessed in line with planning policy;
• an ecological survey was not required;
• plans were verified through a site visit;
• concerns about the impact on neighbouring properties were considered and some impact was mitigated through planning conditions; and
• the site was not within a flood risk zone.
31. Mr X escalated the matter, seeking further explanation and raising new concerns including:
• whether the 50% curtilage rule had been exceeded;
• that his property had not been visited to assess impacts; and
• continued concerns about inaccuracies and loss of light.
32. In November, the Council issued its final complaint response, it:
• provided evidence that notification letters had been sent;
• reiterated that the minor typing error in a case officer report did not affect decision making;
• confirmed that right to light is not a material planning consideration;
• explained that site visits to neighbouring properties are not a requirement;
• confirmed it had reviewed the alleged inaccuracies in the application and said they would not have had a material impact on the decision made; and
• clarified that the 50% curtilage rule applied to permitted development, but that planning permission had been granted in these cases.

My findings

33. 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.

Notification

34. Councils are not required to notify neighbours about LDC applications, so there was no fault in the Council not notifying Mr X.
35. For application 1, the Council has provided postal records showing that notification letters were issued to neighbouring addresses including Mr X’s. While Mr X says he did not receive this, the Council cannot be held responsible for postal delivery issues. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s actions.

Planning consideration and decision-making

36. I have reviewed the case officer reports for all three applications and the committee report for application 3. Each report clearly outlines:
• relevant planning guidelines, regulations and policies considered;
• material planning considerations; and
• a reasoned assessment of objections raised.
37. The case officer reports addressed the principle controversial issues. The law is clear that minor errors do not amount to fault unless they mislead decision-makers. I find the reports were appropriately detailed and the decisions well-reasoned and therefore find no fault.

Ecological impact

38. The Council considered concerns about wildlife and tree removal. It concluded that an ecological survey was not required, and no planning policies or legal thresholds were triggered to mandate one. It reviewed the trees that had been previously removed and found that the trees referred to were not protected by a tree preservation order or within a conservation area so would not impact the assessment of the application. There is no evidence to suggest these decisions were made improperly, I therefore find no fault.

Flood risk

39. Mr X raised concerns about surface water run-off. The site is not located within an Environment Agency flood risk zone, and the Council noted that drainage would be addressed through separate building control processes. This is consistent with national guidance, and there is no fault in how the Council assessed flood risk.

Plan accuracy and site assessment

40. The Council is not required to visit neighbouring properties unless it considers this necessary. Officers used site visits, and other tools to assess context and impact. There is no fault in the Council’s decision not to visit Mr X’s property.
41. Case officers conducted site visits for applications 2 and 3. They took their own measurements and concluded that the plans submitted were accurate enough for decision-making in line with the planning policies. I find no fault in how the Council made its decision.

Right to light

42. Mr X raised concerns about loss of light. While loss of daylight and overshadowing can be material planning considerations, ‘right to light’ is a private legal matter, and not something councils are required to consider when determining planning applications. The Council has considered and documented its decision on Mr X’s loss of light and overshadowing and I therefore find no fault in the Council’s decision making.

National planning guidance and regulations

43. Mr X raised concerns that the developments resulted in the 50% curtilage limit being exceeded. However, this rule applies only to permitted development. The developments in question were determined through full planning applications, where this limit does not apply. The Council’s explanation was accurate and appropriate and therefore there was no fault.

Committee decision

44. Application 3 was considered by the Council’s planning committee. Mr X attended the meeting and had the opportunity to present his views. The committee is entitled to exercise its judgement in weighing material considerations. The evidence shows that it did so, and the decision to approve the application was taken lawfully. The fact that Mr X disagrees with the outcome does not mean the decision was flawed. I find no fault in how the Council conducted the committee process.

Complaint handling

45. The Council has a published complaints process that sets a response target of 15 working days for stage one and 25 working days for stage two. It took 33 working days to issue a stage one response and 72 working days for stage two, a combined delay of 65 working days. This is fault and caused Mr X uncertainty and distress.

Back to top

Action

46. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman