The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process and its decision to grant permission for a new residential property near her house. There is not enough evidence of injustice to Mrs X from any fault in the Council’s planning notification process, nor enough evidence of fault in its planning decision-making process, to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.
The complaint
Mrs X lives in a property near land where the owner has received planning permission for a new residential development. She complains the Council: did not notify her of the planning application by post; wrongly gave the development planning permission; failed to properly consider her objections; failed to consider the impact of the development on her property’s amenity; failed to assess the impact of the development from inside her property; failed to take account of her daughter’s health and medical conditions when making its planning decision; failed to reply to some of her correspondence and keep her updated during the planning process.
Mrs X says the development will result in loss of the view of greenery from her property and loss of all the light to the affected elevation of her house. She says the view and light will be replaced by a solid brick wall a few feet from her main living areas. Mrs X wants the Council to rescind the planning permission.
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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X says the Council did not notify her of the planning application by letter. The Council says it sent a letter but once posted, it cannot control delivery. Mrs X heard of the application the day before the notification period ended. She put in objections in time and sent further comments during the rest of the planning process. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because even if there were fault in the Council’s notification procedure, Mrs X was not disadvantaged by losing an opportunity to register her views on the application. There is not enough injustice caused to Mrs X by this matter to warrant us investigating.
The core issue is the Council’s decision to grant the planning permission. Mrs X considers its decision was wrong. We cannot go behind a council decision unless there is evidence of fault in the process which, but for that fault, would have resulted in the council making a different decision. So I have considered the planning process the Council followed here.
Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider her objections. The Council’s planning report summarises the objections its officers received during the planning process. It goes on to consider whether each point made gives sufficient reason to refuse the application. The planning report indicates the Council properly considered Mrs X’s objections and explained why they did not give grounds to refuse the application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council took account of Mrs X’s objections to justify an investigation.
Material planning issues are ones local authorities should take into account when deciding applications. Examples include overlooking, loss of privacy, and loss of light or overshadowing. Planning decisions are made on the strength of material planning arguments, not on the number of objections made. One of Mrs X’s objections was the impact on the views from her property, which she considers will be unacceptable. But there is no right to an unchanging view enshrined in the planning system, and loss of a view is not a material planning consideration. Mrs X also says the Council did not consider her daughter’s health and medical conditions. But the health or medical conditions of a resident in a nearby property is also not a material planning issue. It was not fault for the Council to not incorporate these issues into its planning assessments.
Mrs X states the Council did not consider the impact of the development on her property’s amenity. The planning officers’ report considered the separation distances involved, the parts of the development which would be visible from Mrs X’s property, and the change in levels between the development site and Mrs X’s land, with her house being on higher ground. The plans indicated the elevation of the proposed property closest to Mrs X’s house would not have any windows serving habitable rooms. Two roof windows would serve a non‑habitable bathroom, and a roof light in a garage would be the only windows visible from Mrs X’s habitable rooms. They reached the view that the impact on the amenity of Mrs X’s property caused by the new development, including loss of privacy and loss of light, did not give them grounds to refuse the permission. That was a decision they were entitled to make. Officers assessed the planning proposal, gathered appropriate information, applied relevant policies, and took account of and responded to material objections received. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision‑making process and its assessment of amenity here to warrant investigation. I realise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the permission. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
Mrs X sought a visit by a planning officer, to assess the matter from inside her house. An officer visited Mrs X’s property and saw the development site from the outside in 2021. Mrs X considered the Council could not properly assess the impact without doing so from inside. It is for council officers to decide what information they need to make their planning decisions. The officer took the view they had gathered the appropriate information about the relationship between the proposed development and its potential amenity impact on Mrs X’s property from the 2021 visit. That is a decision they were entitled to make. There is not enough evidence of fault on this issue to warrant investigation.
Mrs X says the Council failed to reply to some of her correspondence and keep her updated during the matter. The planning process requires councils to issue notification of the application and invite comments on the plans submitted. Those who wish to comment do so. The council considers the comments then makes its decision. That process does not involve officers being in dialogue with or providing ongoing updates to objectors or other parties in the way Mrs X may have expected. Officers may decide to reply when they are able to. But there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this issue to justify investigation.
The outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint is for the Council to rescind the planning permission granted for the development. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. We cannot achieve the remedy Mrs X wants, which is a further reason for us not to investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of injustice to Mrs X from any fault in the Council’s planning notification process to justify an investigation; there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant investigation; we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman