Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application or her concerns about this. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her enquiries about a planning application for a neighbour’s development. She was not seeking to overturn the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. She was concerned the Council may not have properly assessed the impact of the development on neighbour amenity (including her own). She believes the content of the Planning Officer’s report does not give her confidence the Council has sufficiently considered material planning considerations. She wants us to review the Council's handling and responses to her.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and information publicly available online through the Council’s planning portal.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law says councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the views from a neighbouring property or a potential reduction in its value. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, loss of privacy and visual appearance and finishing materials.
7. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. A council must be able to show it has considered the material planning considerations that are engaged by the planning process. Evidence is usually found in the case officer’s report. The records should show what considerations were taken into account and what the council made of them.
8. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
9. Ms X believes the Planning Officer’s report in this case did not sufficiently demonstrate consideration and assessment of the impact the proposed development might have on neighbour amenity and other material planning issues, such as separation distances and overlooking. She contacted the Council to ask for further clarification.
10. The Council responded and gave responses to Ms X’s specific questions with additional information about the Planning Officer’s assessment which informed their report. This included:

• a site visit;
• measurement of separation distances;
• confirming which parts of the Local Design Guide were considered;
• taking photographs of the development site; and,
• an assessment of whether there would be an increase in overlooking, taking account of the purpose the proposed rooms served and existing windows which already faced neighbouring properties.

11. The Council also explained the proposed dormer windows would normally be permitted development but in this case those rights had been removed when the site was originally approved.
12. Ms X has brought her complaint to us because she remains dissatisfied with Council’s response and that it has not answered her further questions about the matter.
13. We will not investigate further because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of the planning application or the way in which it has responded to Ms X’s enquiries. While Ms X may not believe the Planning Officer’s report is detailed enough, 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; 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. In this case, the Council has further clarified the extent of the Planning Officer’s assessment. Ms X’s disagreement with this or the explanations she has since received from the Council is not evidence of fault nor does it suggest the Council’s decision making was flawed to justify us questioning the approval it granted to Ms X’s neighbour’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman