Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for new houses near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. And we cannot require the Council to withdraw the planning permission.

The complaint

1. Mr X complaints the Council failed to correctly consider a planning application and objections before granting planning permission for six new houses near his home. He says the new road junction created for the development will create extra danger for his family and is damaging to the local street scene.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains Council officers misled the planning committee, misrepresented objections, and failed to make satisfactory enquiries about proposed levels on a planning application. He says these failures led the Council to approve the application resulting in six new houses behind his home and changes to the junction on his road.
6. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Permission is required for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority (LPA). It may also be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
7. All decisions on planning applications must be made according to the Council’s local development plan unless material considerations show otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. It constitutes guidance in drawing up plans and is a material consideration in determining applications.
8. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or drop in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
9. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
10. The Council publicised the application and received representations, including objections from Mr X.
11. The planning officer visited the site and wrote a report on the proposal. The report includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from Mr X.
12. The report includes specific reference to properties on Mr X’s road (which includes his home). It notes the separation distances between the windows in the new properties and those on Mr X’s road is about 40 to 50 metres. This prevents negative impacts on the existing homes on privacy, overbearing and daylight/sunlight.
13. The highways team also commented on the proposal. At first they objected to the proposal because there was not enough information. However, following the receipt of more information, they withdrew their objections to the scheme. The report notes a road safety audit of the site junction took place for a previously refused application (for more houses on the site). Three further road safety audits will take place during the design phase and before first use of the new junction. The highways team are satisfied that an acceptable and safe access will be provided for pedestrians and vehicles.
14. The planning officer’s report also includes what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer recommends approval. The officer decided the proposal would:
• not be particularly visible from the public highway
• was of high-quality design and materials
• mitigate tree loss with replacement landscaping and protect wildlife habitats

They also concluded the back land location is acceptable for six new family homes, and the site is large enough to hold the increased residential use with an existing access road.

15. The draft minutes of the planning committee meeting show members considered the application in full, including the objections. A member of the public objecting to the proposal spoke to the committee. A person also spoke in favour of the application. Following debate most of the committee voted to approve the application.
16. Having considered Mr X’s complaint I am satisfied:
• the Highways Team withdrew their objections once the applicant provided more information
• there is no specific policy which addresses land levels, however the separation distances in the Council’s planning guidance are exceeded
• No computer-generated images are required to be provided with a planning application and the impact on the street scene was considered
• If the applicant was unhappy with the conditions placed on the planning permission, they had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
17. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
18. The planning committee considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. I have seen no evidence that officers misled the planning committee. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
19. Mr X is ultimately seeking withdrawal of the planning permission. This is not something we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. And we cannot achieve the ultimate outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman