The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approval of a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X, complains on behalf of Mrs Y. He says the Council approved a planning application against the wishes of Councillors and the Planning Committee without scrutiny. He says the Council: used the approval of an earlier application to grant permission for a later application, but disregarded the objections it received for both applications failed to consider issues that have occurred during the three years between the two different schemes failed to consider the impact of an extra 1000+ car journeys that are being added to the area following other approved applications Mr X wants the development reconsidered by the Planning Committee and any changes it recommends implemented.
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
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.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; 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.
A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because 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.
What happened In 2018 the Council approved a planning application subject to the successful completion of a section 106 agreement.
The law says a complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the matter. Mr X says the Council ignored the objections it received for this application. However, this was approved four years ago. I have seen no reason why Mr X or Mrs Y could not have complained about this earlier.
The 2018 application was withdrawn, and the section 106 legal agreement was not completed.
The Council received a new application for the same site. It publicised the application and the Case Officer prepared a report on the scheme. The report includes a summary of all the objections to the application.
It is for planning officers 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.
Mr X says the Council ignored the objections it received. I disagree. The planning officer’s report lays out: what legislation applies to the case a summary of the 59 objections received and details why the officer considers the scheme overcomes theses why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer decided the application provide a residential scheme in an unallocated site within the Green Belt. He concludes the scale, form layout and design are acceptable and present no concerns for residential visual amenity or highway safety. And it satisfies the various policies. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
The new application was presented to the Chairperson of Regulatory and Appeals Committee and he was advised of the intention to approve the application under scheme of delegation. No new objections had been received which differed from those objections to the previously approved scheme. The Chairperson agreed to the determine application under officer delegation A Senior Officer considered the Case Officer’s report. The application was approved according to the Council’s scheme of delegation which was took effect in January 2021. While Mr X and Mrs Y may disagree with the decision, I have seen no evidence of fault in the decision-making process.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the complaint does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman