Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about how the council decided a planning application for a neighbouring property. This is because the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about how the Council decided a planning application for a neighbouring property. They say the Council did not adequately consider the effects of the development on their property in the officer’s report and the Council should have referred the decision to its planning committee. They would like the Council to require, or contribute to, extra landscaping work to break up their view of the new property.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr and Mrs X in their complaint, the letters they sent to the Council and the Council’s responses to them;
• the planning officer’s report and plans from the planning application; and
• the Council’s rules about delegated planning decisions.
5. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr and Mrs X. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr and Mrs X live next to a property where the Council granted planning permission to demolish and replace the existing building.
7. Mr and Mrs X objected to the planning application because of the size of the proposed property and the effects the development would have on their visual amenity and appearance of the neighbourhood.
8. Despite these objections, a planning officer granted the application on behalf of the Council.
9. Mr and Mrs X remain concerned that:
• The Council did not properly consider their objection to the application;
• the planning officer’s report did not assess the effects the development would have on their property, specifically that the size of the building would be overbearing;
• the Council should have added conditions to the planning permission to preserve or add landscaping to screen the view of the property from Mr and Mrs X’s home; and
• the Council should have referred the planning application to its Development Control Committee (DCC).
10. In its response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint the Council has said:
• the planning officer did consider Mr and Mrs X’s objection, although the report did not refer to it directly;
• an officer made a site visit which did consider Mr and Mrs X’s property, but their property was further away than the other properties referred to by name in the report;
• the agreed plans would keep the landscaping, and the planning officer considered this sufficient; and
• the Council asked local councillors if they wanted to refer the application to the DCC, as required by the Council’s rules on delegated decisions. None of the councillors made a referral, so a planning officer decided the application, under the Council’s rules.
11. Mr and Mrs X say that because the officer’s report did not mention their property, they thought they had been ignored. They say this caused them to pay for professional planning advice and suffer undue anxiety.

The planning officer’s report

12. The planning officer’s report refers to receiving a number of objections. The report does not identify the senders, but the number matches the number of close neighbours, who Mr and Mrs X say sent objections.
13. The report identifies that “impact on the character of the area” and “impact on residential amenity” are main planning considerations for the application.
14. In considering the impact on the character of the area the report considered the size of the proposed property, construction materials, other properties in the area and the local “Character Area Assessment”. The officer decided the proposal met the requirement to “respect the character of the area”.
15. In considering the impact on neighbouring amenity, the report specifically considered two neighbouring properties that are within 50 metres of the development. The report does not mention Mr and Mrs X’s property which is further away than the two properties named in the report.
16. The officer considered the effects of the development on the visual amenity of both properties. The report refers to this as the “outlook”. The officer decided the development would only minimally affect the outlook of both properties because of the increased distance from the boundary, the overall distance from the windows and overall visibility.
17. The officer also considered privacy and the impact on light, deciding these would also not be significantly affected.
18. The plans for the development stated existing trees and boundary landscaping would be kept and the officer decided this would be acceptable.

Referring applications to the Development Control Committee

19. The Council’s constitution says planning decisions can be made by officers of the Council subject to several exceptions. The exception relevant to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint is:
• a parish or town council submit a comment which is contrary to the officer’s view; and
• one of the ward councillors refers the decision to the committee.

Analysis

20. The report clearly identifies the number of objections received and this number suggests Mr and Mrs X’s objection was included.
21. The report shows the planning officer considered the effect on the two closest neighbouring properties and decided the effects would not be enough to refuse planning permission.
22. The planning officer also considered the need for trees and landscaping and decided the information in the site plan was adequate.
23. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X may disagree with the planning officer’s conclusions on these points. However, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and it is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
24. The evidence shows the Council correctly applied its procedures for referring applications to the DCC. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made the decision not to refer the application to the DCC.
25. While the planning officer’s report did not directly address the potential effect on Mr and Mrs X’s property, their property is further away than the closest neighbour considered in the report. The planning officer decided the effect on amenity of the closer property did not justify refusing the application or adding further conditions. So, it is likely the conclusions would have been the same if Mr and Mrs X’s property had been specifically mentioned.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman