The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension on a property next to the complainant’s home. The Council considered the relevant legislation and the objections received and decided to approve the application. Without fault, this is a decision it is entitled to make.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr J, complains about the Council’s consideration of his neighbour’s application for extension to their property. He says the Council: Failed to refer to a planning application made in 1997 which was refused Failed to consider its own planning polices and Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Failed to visit the site despite the complainant asking for a visit He also says the Leader of the Council visited them after planning permission has been granted and said the proposal was out of character for area.
Mr J wants: the application re-evaluated a site visit an explanation why the proposal was allowed If this is not possible he wants the Council to pay for trees to provide screening.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mr J and the Council information about the planning application available on the Council’s website; and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests.
Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
A council planning officer will write a report assessing the proposed development. There is no statutory obligation for the Officer to visit the application site, or neighbouring properties. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise objections received; 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.
It is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.
My findings
The planning officer considered it was not necessary to visit the site as they had enough photos. They wrote a report on the proposal. This includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from Mr J.
The planning officer’s report lays out: what legislation has applied to the case the objections received (including those from Mr J); and observations on the site and the proposal The previous application Mr J refers to was made in 1997. It was assessed against the Council policies in place at the time and refused. Councils are required to update their planning policies and guidance. The latest application was assessed against the Council’s current planning policies. I do not consider that a failure to refer to an application which was refused more than 25 years ago.
The assessment details why the officer made their recommendation. They decided overall, given: the offset positions of neighbouring properties the separation distances the scale of the proposed extension that the application would not harm residential or visual amenity. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
It is for planning officers and/or 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. While Mr J may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr J’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot require the Council to reconsider the planning application or pay for screening for Mr J’s home.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman