The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the way the Council considered and approved his neighbour’s planning application. He says: The Planning Officer was biased because they had dealt with a previously refused application and then the successful application from the same applicant for the same site.
The planning officer’s report on the proposal contained wrong information; and The Council failed to respond to his emails
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s neighbour applied for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development for a rear dormer loft conversion. The Council refused the application because the property does not benefit from any permitted development rights. Therefore, a full planning application was required for the scheme.
The Council received a planning application for the same scheme.
Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made.
The Council publicised the application and Mr X objected.
The planning officer prepared a report on the scheme. The report set out: the history of the site the details of the proposed rear dormer loft conversion the relevant national and local planning policies; and a summary of Mr X’s objections on the grounds the proposal would: Enable views into the rear rooms of his home including bedrooms causing overlooking and loss of privacy.
It would cause light pollution; and It was out of character with the wider area.
The report considered the impact of the scheme on Mr X’s home. It notes the development site sits on higher ground than Mr X’s home. And because of this, the first-floor rear windows of Mr X’s home are already visible from within the application property. The officer also noted there is more than 17 metres between the rear walls of the application property and Mr X’s home. This meets the Council’s supplementary planning guidance which requires: Seven metres between the applicant’s new window and their boundary; and Seventeen metres between the rear walls of the applicant’s property and Mr X’s home.
Having considered the proposal and all relevant matters, the planning officer decided the impact of the new dormer extension would not make the existing impact any worse. This is a professional judgement the officer is entitled to make. The Council granted planning permission.
Mr X says the planning officer’s measurements are wrong and there is only 15 metres between the properties. However, in its response to his complaint the Council confirms it took measurements from the ordnance survey maps provided with the application. It says these show about 10 metres from the rear wall of the applicants home to the boundary and about 20 metres between the rear walls of the properties.
We can look at the Council’s decision-making process, but we cannot say if a decision is right or wrong. The Council should take account of law, policy, relevant evidence, and comments received. If it has followed these steps, we cannot find fault.
From the information I have seen it is clear the Council understood the details of the application, the topography of the site and Mr X’s objections and the impact on home. It details the relevant planning policies, the separation distances and explains why it considered the application is acceptable.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to grant planning permission.
Mr X also complains the Council failed to respond to his emails about the planning application and planning process.
The opportunity to make representations on a planning application is not the same as being consulted. The Council must consider all material representations it receives but officers are not required to enter into a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
Mr X is concerned there is a conflict of interest because the same planning officer dealt with the previously refused application for the Certificate of Lawful Use or Development. However, it is not unusual for planning officers to deal with multiple applications from the same developers. From the information I have seen, there is no suggestion of bias in the planning officer’s actions.
Finally, Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint, including failures to respond to his emails. I understand this was frustrating for Mr X. The Council has apologised for the difficulty he experienced in getting information about the complaint procedure. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. We consider it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and approved his neighbour’s planning application. Nor will we investigate concerns about the complaint process as we are not considering the substantive issue.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman