Summary: Mr X complained the Council was at fault for failing to properly consider the impact of a development neighbouring his property when it approved changes to an existing planning permission. He said this caused distress and frustration and reduced his confidence in the planning process. We found fault because the Council repeated an error identified in an earlier Ombudsman investigation concerning the same development. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Uttlesford District Council (the Council) was at fault for failing to properly consider the impact of a development neighbouring his property when it approved changes to an existing planning permission. He said the Council repeated errors identified in an earlier Ombudsman investigation and did not properly assess the effect the changes would have on his privacy. Mr X said this caused him distress and frustration and resulted in a loss of confidence in the planning process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

7. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Section 73 applications

8. Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a developer to seek permission to develop land without complying with conditions attached to an existing planning permission. In deciding such applications, councils must consider the planning merits of the proposed changes and their impacts, but the principle of the development has already been established by the original planning permission.

Decision making process & delegation

9. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.

Case officer reports & giving reasons for decisions

10. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not only to help the council decide on the application. It is also 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.

What happened

11. Several years ago, we investigated a complaint Mr X made about an earlier planning permission for a development site neighbouring his property. We found fault because the Council's officer report incorrectly described windows at Mr X's property, but we did not find the fault affected the planning outcome.
12. In 2025, the developer applied under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary conditions attached to the existing planning permission. Mr X objected to the application. He said the revised plans would move parts of the development closer to his property and introduce additional windows which would affect his privacy.
13. The Council approved the application. The officer's report concluded the amendments would not cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity. The report stated there were no first-floor windows on neighbouring properties facing the development site.
14. Mr X complained to the Council. He said there was a first-floor window on his property facing the development site. He complained the Council had not properly considered the impact of the revised development on his privacy and had failed to take proper account of the findings from the previous Ombudsman investigation.
15. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure. It said the planning officer had visited the site and considered the application and objections received. It noted the officer's report stated there were no first-floor windows on neighbouring properties facing the site. While it accepted the report could have more accurately referred to windows at Mr X's property, it did not consider this would have affected the planning decision.
16. Mr X asked to escalate his complaint to stage two. In its response, the Council accepted the earlier error had been repeated and apologised. It said this should not have happened. However, it maintained the oversight did not affect its decision on the application.

Analysis

17. The Council approved a section 73 application to vary an existing planning permission. It considered the proposed changes, Mr X's objections and the impact on neighbouring amenity before reaching its decision. However, the officer's report wrongly stated there were no first-floor windows on neighbouring properties facing the site. The Council had already accepted during an earlier Ombudsman investigation that this was incorrect. It later accepted it had repeated the same error. This was fault.
18. The Council explained during the complaint process why it considered the amendments acceptable and why it did not consider the error affected its assessment. I have found no fault in the way the Council considered this decision and therefore cannot question the outcome.
19. The repeated error caused Mr X frustration, reduced his confidence in the planning process and put him to the time and trouble of making a further complaint.
20. The Council apologised to Mr X during its complaint process. However, I do not consider this was a sufficient remedy on its own. Therefore, the Council should make a symbolic payment to recognise the frustration and time and trouble caused by the repeated fault.

Back to top

Action

21. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr X, the Council should, within one month of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay £200 to Mr X to recognise the avoidable frustration caused.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman