Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s decision-making process on his neighbour’s planning application was flawed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to demolish their property and build a replacement with an outbuilding and associated landscaping.
6. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. The report acknowledged the application is for a replacement house which is significantly larger than the original building. It is therefore inappropriate development in the green belt. The Officer then stated the Council needed to consider whether there were any very special circumstances which outweighs the substantial harm to the green belt.
7. The report also notes:
• The proposed building sits well in terms of design and character.
• The separation distances between the proposed building and nearest neighbouring properties (including Mr X’s home) leads to no significant adverse impacts to neighbouring properties.
• The proposed house will be about 13 metres from Mr X’s home but will be at an angle.
• The applicant has a Lawful Development Certificate for the existing property. This allows
1. Two single-storey side extensions.
2. One single-storey rear extension
3. One additional storey; and
4. One outbuilding.
8. The Officer calculated that the volume of the permitted development would be larger than that of the proposed new development. They recommended the Council approve application for the replacement house as the fallback position with the extensions and outbuilding would cause more harm to the green belt.
9. A senior officer agreed with the officer recommendation and the Council approved the application for the replacement house.
10. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the officer report contained errors and the request to have the application decided by the planning committee was denied.
11. The report refers to the new house being 13 metres from the side wall of Mr X’s home. However, the Council accepts this is wrong and it should say it will be 13 metres from the front wall of his home. Whilst this is regrettable, from the information available, including plans, it is clear the Council was fully aware of what was being granted permission.
12. The Council also confirms:
• A maximum increase of 30% of a property applies to extensions to existing homes, not to replacement buildings.
• The request to call in the application to be heard by the planning committee was made too late. The Lead Committee Officer and the Committee Chair considered the late request and decided to reject it.
13. 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; 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.
14. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
15. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
16. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and those from other residents. It addressed the concerns raised.
17. It is for planning officers and / or Committee members to decide what weight to give. 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.
18. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if she investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman