Potential fault didn’t mean council made wrong Milton Keynes planning decision, watchdog rules

The woman, named only as Ms X, told the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman that Milton Keynes Council had not consulted her to consider her concerns about light, views from her home, and the value of her apartment.

The Ombudsman said: “Even if we had evidence that the council had not sent a notice to Ms X, it does not follow that we would be able to show the outcome would have been different.

“In making its decision, the council took account of comments from neighbours and other consultees, and considered the plans, planning policy and guidance. It covered the matters we would expect it to.

“It also followed the decision-making process we would expect and in these circumstances the council was entitled to reach the decision it has.”

The Ombudsman also said it was “more likely than not that the council did send” a notice of the application, which Ms X says she did not see.

The council produced a computer record to show it had been printed, but does not have to prove that it was received.

On the three issues Ms X raised, the Ombudsman said two of them; views over another’s land, and the impact of development on property value, could not be considered.

“The courts have decided that there is no right to a view onto or over another’s land and the impact development has on property value is not a planning consideration,” the Ombudsman said.

The third issue raised was over Ms X’s kitchen window, which faces the site.

“Ms X is right to say there was no mention of primary clear glazed windows facing the site,” the Ombudsman said.

“It is possible that we might find fault here, but before investigating further, we must consider whether it is likely we would be able to find evidence of a significant injustice to Ms X.”

The Ombudsman ruled that this was not likely.

“A kitchen window is generally not considered to be a habitable room and is not given as much protection in terms of loss of light and privacy that rooms like living, dining or bedrooms get.”

The Ombudsman ruled that the council’s “judgement that privacy and light are not significantly affected does not seem unreasonable”.

Concluding the investigation, the Ombudsman said: “I ended my investigation as, while there was some potential for fault in the way the council made its planning decision, there was no evidence to show it would have made any difference to the outcome.

“In the absence of fault in the decision-making process, we do not comment on the judgements made by a council’s officers and members.”