Summary: Mr X complained the Council misled its planning committee and approved planning permission based on inaccurate plans. We have found the Council at fault for submitting plans which it knew were not accurate, but we do not consider this caused injustice to Mr X. The apology already provided by the Council in response to Mr X’s complaints is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained:
• A planning officer misled the planning committee with their report and the Council approved planning permission despite being aware the architect’s plans were misleading.
• Building work has not been completed in accordance with the approved plans.
• A cycle store has been approved.
• There is inadequate parking for the site.
2. Mr X says as a result, an oversized roof blocks light to his lounge and living room and impacts his amenity. He has also lost privacy due to unapproved windows being added to the building which overlooks his property, and he can see into two of the bedsits. He also says the inadequate parking means he cannot safely leave his driveway due to cars parking on the road and the cycle store will be noisy at peak times. Mr X would like the roof changed to a flat roof, the window which overlooks his garden to be removed, the cycle store to be relocated, no parking next to his driveway and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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(i), as amended)
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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Planning Permission

9. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
   Planning considerations include things like:

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

Planning considerations do not include things like:

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

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

10. 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.

Enforcement

11. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
12. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
13. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
14. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework September 2023, paragraph 59)

What happened

15. The following is a summary of key events. It is not intended to be a complete chronology.
16. In 2021, planning permission was approved for the property next to Mr X’s home. The planning permission granted the demolition of existing buildings and construction of new apartments. Following this planning permission being granted, the developers submitted a new planning application for the same site.
17. The new planning application, application 2, was approved by the Council’s planning committee. In its complaint correspondence with Mr X, the Council has acknowledged some of the plans submitted to the planning committee were not accurate. The Council apologised for this error in its complaint responses.
18. A revised application, application 3, was submitted by the developers and was approved by a planning officer using delegated powers. This application included the building extension, car park and cycle store.
19. In approving the application, the planning officer considered a consultation response from the County Highway Authority who had no objections to the application and said the parking spaces and cycle storage would not impact on the local highway network.
20. The planning officer’s report also considers the impact of the building work on Mr X’s property. The officer notes the 2021 planning approval permitted a taller building, and it was felt application 3 would not result in greater impact than the previously approved plan.
21. In May 2024, Mr X reported a breach of planning conditions to the Council regarding the size of a window which overlooked his property. The Council visited the site and agreed the window was not in line with the approved plans. Following this visit the Council contacted the site agents to request it change the design of the window.
22. The Council contacted Mr X in September 2024 to ask if he agreed to a proposal from the agents which involved construction of a build out window designed to direct views away from Mr X’s property. Mr X responded that he was not in agreement with the proposal as the window impacted his privacy.
23. In November 2024 the Council received a new planning application which seeks to remedy the break of planning control. This application is still being considered by the Council.

My findings

24. The Council has admitted fault in submitting inaccurate drawings to the planning committee for application 2. As this application was superseded by application 3, I do not consider the fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has apologised for this fault which I consider a satisfactory remedy.
25. There is no evidence of fault in the process of approval of application 3. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from consultees and its own policies. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making the decision to approve application 3 and I cannot therefore criticise it.
26. There is no fault in the Council’s actions following Mr X reporting a breach of planning conditions. The Council took action to investigate the breach and resolve the issue. The Council worked with the site agent and Mr X to propose solutions to the breach, and it is currently considering a retrospective planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

27. We uphold this complaint. I consider the apology already provided by the Council to be a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman