The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered planning applications to vary conditions on planning permissions for converting outbuildings to holiday cottages. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission for changes to the original planning permission for work to convert a neighbouring barn to holiday accommodation. He says the Council: failed to communicate with him or his agent; accepted incorrect information about the height of the roof and the roof lights; and failed to consider ecology, historical information, and heritage reports.
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
The Council granted planning permission to convert two outbuildings near Mr X’s home into holiday cottages. Later, the Council received applications to vary both.
Mr X objected to the applications. He also engaged a planning agent to make objections on his behalf.
The Case Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of Mr X’s objections which include: concerns that the roof had been increased in height at the ridge and eaves which cause loss of light and overshadowing installation of large, opening rooflights instead of small glass rooflights which enable overlooking of his home; and installation of a new roof structure.
The Officer’s report also lays out what legislation applied to the case and why the Officer has made their recommendation. The Officer considered Mr X’s objections: The rooflights are more than two metres above the internal floor level and the Officer considered there will be no opportunity for the occupiers of the barn to look out of these windows directly into Mr X’s home and garden The roof ridge and eaves height had been increased and it was accepted this caused some additional loss of light to Mr X’s property. However, the loss is not so significant as to justify refusing the applications.
The Council’s Conservation Officer considered the harm to the heritage assets caused by the variations was less than substantial.
The more efficient use of the building outweighs any harm to the setting of the listed building.
The Council’s Ecologist does not object to the new scheme, subject to conditions.
The Planning Officer recommended the Planning Committee approve the applications. This is a professional judgement and decision the Officer is entitled to make.
The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting shows the Council considered Mr X’s objections. His agent spoke to the Committee Members. The minutes also reflect the Members sympathised with Mr X, but the difference in height from the original and new roof is” not sufficient to warrant refusal”.
So, it is clear the Planning Committee considered the Officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning applications.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman