Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider relevant planning matters when granting outline planning permission for a development. He says this will lead to unacceptable overlooking of his garden and damage to the local ecology. The Council considered those matters relevant at this early stage, with the rest left for later, so there was no fault. However, the Council failed to refer Mr X to the Ombudsman when it responded to his complaint. It will make sure it does this in future.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council failed to consider relevant planning matters when granting planning permission for a development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the Council’s powers and duties under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him on the telephone. I checked planning documents available on the Council’s website. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties, invited their comments and made minor factual revisions following those I received.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council received a planning application to build a group of houses on a site that was formerly used as an orchard. It granted outline permission for the development, but it has not yet considered a detailed application for the site.
7. Outline planning applications concern whether a site can potentially be developed. It is therefore planning permission in principle. A planning authority may refuse consent or grant outline permission with conditions. These control the nature of what can be built on the site.
8. Planning authorities must consider relevant planning matters when deciding an application. These relate to the effects on the amenity of those neighbouring the site. They include the effects of the proposed development on light, road safety and traffic, parking, local wildlife, proximity to neighbouring buildings, and privacy. Some of these can be left to the stage where it considers a full planning application.
9. Many applications are decided by planning officers on delegated authority. However, others are decided by elected councillors serving on a planning committee. The reasons for involving a planning committee vary from authority to authority. However, controversial applications where a local parish council objects to a development are, in most areas of the country, considered by a planning authority’s planning committee, as in this case. Here, the development of a site within a village was set against the desire to protect local biodiversity. The Council acted without fault in having its planning committee decide the application.
10. Whether involving a planning committee or not, planning authorities may decide a site visit is necessary. In this case, the planning committee visited the site. It could not enter it, but that does not invalidate the planning decision. This is because site visits are a power, not a duty. And the planning committee was satisfied by what it saw.
11. The planning officer’s report shows the Council did not decide most matters at the outline stage. However, it granted permission for the development with conditions. These concerned vehicular access and parking spaces, and they limited the maximum height of any building to two storeys or floors of accommodation to protect the amenity of neighbours. While the details were left for later, essentially the exact positioning and orientation of buildings, the Council considered these relevant planning matters. I would not expect the Council to have considered loss of light regarding Mr X’s two properties at this stage. But I note that development on the site is also unlikely to cause loss of light to either building as plans show they are situated south of it.
12. Mr X’s main concern is local ecology, specifically bat roosts and trees. The planning permission contained a condition that prevented any development taking place before a tree survey, a tree protection plan and an arboricultural method statement is completed. This reflected the fact that a survey of the site made during the winter did not find bat roosts, but it concluded that there might be a different result during the summer months when bats are active. It also warned that bats are able to hide in small crevices, so the apparent absence of bats at the time of the survey was not definitive. I note the planning committee’s site visit notes state that it was believed that the possible removal of a bat roost before the visit had been reported to police. While I cannot say if this removal happened, reporting it to the police as a criminal matter would be the correct course. Mr X has understandable concerns about the potential loss of trees and bat roosts. However, I cannot say the Council failed to consider this relevant planning matter when granting outline permission for the development.
13. Although I have not found fault in the way the Council dealt with the outline planning application, there was fault in the way it dealt with Mr X’s complaint.
14. The Council, acting with neighbouring authorities, has set up a service delivery company, which also handles complaints. In its final response to Mr X’s complaint, this company told him he could consider judicial review if he remained dissatisfied with the response. It failed to tell him of his right to approach the Ombudsman. This was fault. I note this did not prevent Mr X coming to us, so there was no personal injustice to him. However, I am concerned that there should be no repeat involving other complainants, who might have been deterred from pursuing their complaints.

Agreed action

15. To prevent a repeat of the fault found, the Council will, within one month of the final decision:

• Check other cases where the agency has issued a final response since 1 January 2019 to see if it has failed to refer any of these to the Ombudsman. If it finds any where this has happened, it should write to the complainants advising them of their right to approach us; and
• Instruct the company that it must include the Ombudsman’s contact details in every final response to a complainant with the proviso that if they remain dissatisfied, they can approach us.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have upheld the complaint about complaint handling and closed the case as the Council has agreed to take suitable action to remedy any potential injustice to other service users. I do not uphold the substantive matters complained of.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman