Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approval of a planning permission for a neighbouring wall and the failure to consider the impact on his amenity. We have not found fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that Tandridge District Council (the Council) in approving a planning application for a replacement wall at the neighbouring property, failed to understand the impact on Mr X’s ability to exit the driveway safely. The Council has made incorrect statements in both the stage one and stage two complaint responses indicating that the complainants can turn their car in the driveway and exit in forward gear and that the exit is not the main access point for vehicles. The Council had failed to visit or contact them to discuss their concerns or view the site from their perspective. Mr X said it has caused them significant distress from the dangerous situation which now faces them every time they exit the driveway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

Planning permission

6. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
7. Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

8. Material planning considerations do not include:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

What happened

10. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a replacement boundary wall. Both parties live on a private road off a public highway and share a driveway. The private road is also a public right of way. The case officer visited the site, put up a site notice and took four photographs, showing the existing wall. The officer did not consider it was necessary to talk to Mr X as they had sufficient information to reach a decision.
11. The Council consulted with the highway authority who had no objections as the development would not have a material impact on the public highway. The parish council raised concerns that the wall may obscure sight lines for vehicles exiting the driveway. Mr X objected on the grounds that it would restrict views of vehicles exiting the driveway and would be dangerous to pedestrians and other road users.
12. The case officer wrote a report setting out their consideration of the application. This included the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the conservation area including nearby listed buildings. The officer recognised the proposed wall was not a like-for-like replacement but considered it would make a positive contribution to the area and would not have a significant impact on the character of the area.
13. In terms of residential amenity, the officer identified Mr X’s property and that it shared a driveway with the applicant. They noted the driveway was not changing in size but acknowledged the view of the highway would be reduced. For this reason, they had consulted the highway authority who concluded the proposals would not have a material impact on the public highway. The officer concluded that the plans would not impact Mr X’s amenity significantly enough to justify refusal of the application. So, the Council granted planning permission.
14. Mr X complained about the decision, including the reduced sightlines. The Council responded at stage one of the complaints procedure. It acknowledged the previous wall afforded some views of the road below, but said it was not the vehicular access point at which cars enter/exit from and so it was not considered that this partial loss of view was unacceptable or would impede highway safety and the changes to the wall did not affect the driveway itself. The Council said that as part of the consideration of the complaint, the highways officer had visited the site with the public rights of way officer and neither had any objections to the proposals.
15. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure and asked an officer to visit the site to witness the reversing manoeuvre he had to do to exit the driveway safely.
16. The Council responded to the complaint. They upheld the previous response again saying that the driveway was not where vehicles usually enter or leave the site and any views would have been limited to the area just outside the garages on the neighbour’s side. The Council maintained the changes to the wall did not have a negative impact and no changes were made to the vehicle access point.
17. The Council also said two more senior officers had visited the site since Mr X had made his complaint along with an enforcement officer and viewed the driveway. It said there was no requirement to view any reversing manoeuvre as the development did not make changes to the existing vehicular access point. It said there was ample room within the site to turn a motor vehicle and exit in forward gear. Both the highways officer and the public rights of way officer did not consider there was an adverse impact on highway or public footpath safety.
18. Mr X complained to us.
19. In response to my enquiries the Council says it is not aware of any requirements for vehicle sightlines within private roads and the highways officer was satisfied it had no impact on highway safety. It also noted that there was little evidence to suggest that restricted visibility in a shared private driveway situation resulted in any material risk to personal safety given the low speeds at which vehicles were moving. It also said that prior to the changes to the wall, any driver exiting the driveway in reverse gear would not have a clear sightline in both directions.

Findings

20. I understand Mr X is inconvenienced by the change to the wall as he now cannot see the private road when exiting his drive in the same way as before and this raises concerns for any other pedestrians or vehicles who might be approaching.
21. However, 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.
22. I have not identified fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. The case officer visited the site, took photographs and put up a site notice. This is evidence that the Council was aware of the layout of the site and the implications of the change to the wall and the relation to Mr X’s property. The officer consulted Mr X on the application, who was able to submit comments which the Council considered. As a result of his comments about a reduced sightline, the Council consulted the highway authority who raised no concerns about highway safety. The case officer then set out their reasons for approving the application and the Council granted planning permission
23. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to approve the application. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
24. In response to Mr X’s complaints two managers visited the site as did the highway officer, the public rights of way officer and an enforcement officer. No concerns were raised as a result of these visits.
25. I consider the Council’s complaint responses provided confusing information about the layout of the site and the impact on Mr X’s amenity as they referred to the driveway not being where vehicles exited the site and there was ample room within the site to turn a vehicle and exit in forward gear. The Council has clarified in its response to my enquiries that this was in the context of the site and related to the land owned by the applicant and used by them for vehicles, not to the specific arrangements for Mr X’s vehicle access which relied on permission to use land he does not own. This is a civil matter which was not a material consideration in the planning decision.
26. The Council has also explained that it took into account the size of the private road and the low number of vehicles using it at low speeds, in reaching its decision that the impact on Mr X’s amenity was not significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.
27. I consider these further explanations put right the confusion Mr X was caused by the complaint responses.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have not found fault causing injustice in the planning process and I consider the confusion caused by the fault in the complaints process has been put right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman