Summary: Ms X complains about the Authority’s handling of a planning application for a housing development in her locality. The Ombudsman has found no evidence there was significant fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains there was fault in the Authority’s handling of a planning application for a housing development in her locality which will negatively impact on the National Park. She says the Authority did not follow the National Planning Policy Framework or the Statutory Purpose of National Parks; allowed land outside the settlement boundary to be built on; did not properly consider the impact of the development on the landscape; pre-determined the decision; did not properly carry out the site visit for members and gave insufficient consideration to information provided by consultees and objectors.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Ms X’s complaint and the Authority’s response.
5. I have also considered the relevant planning documents.
6. Ms X and the Authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Ms X lives near a site the subject of a planning application for a new housing development. All the dwellings proposed for the development are to be affordable housing and so for people on a lower than average income.
8. Ms X, along with other local residents, submitted her objections to the application. The officer report recommended approval of the application and the Committee resolved to grant permission subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement. Such agreements are those between the applicant and local planning authority setting out the applicant’s planning obligations and used to mitigate the impact of the development on the local community and infrastructure.
9. Unhappy with the Authority’s decision, Ms X complained to it and raised a number of concerns about its planning process and how the application for the housing development had been dealt with.
10. Included in its response to various matters raised by Ms X, the Authority explained the majority of the site fell within that allocated for affordable development and that the smaller area which currently falls outside it had been treated as a rural exception site. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines rural exception sites as those which can be used for affordable housing in perpetuity when normally such sites would not be used for housing.
11. The Authority explained pre-application advice given to applicants does not bind officers or pre-judge applications and that it would not generally publish notes of pre-application meetings.
12. With regard to site visits for members, it explained these are fact finding exercises and not an opportunity to make representations. It further explained that, after the site visit, a member of a local council who had been appointed to the Authority realised that part of the land was in the ownership of that council and so had declared an interest at the meeting and did not participate in the debate or vote.
13. The Authority noted Ms X’s concern that members had not visited various vantage points, including the one she said would be most impacted by the development, and accepted that it would have been preferable had they done so. It also confirmed that at the time of the site visit, there had been no requirement for minutes of the visit to have been written up.
14. In response to Ms X’s claims that the Authority’s officers had accepted without scrutiny the inaccurate comments made by some planning consultees, it explained that the comments made are presented without alteration to avoid misrepresentation. It explained there can be a difference of views depending on the nature of the body commenting and that where appropriate reference would be made in the officer report.
15. The Authority told Ms X that both the Statutory Purposes of National Parks and the Authority’s Climate Emergency Declaration had been considered in determining the application and both had been referenced in the officer report.
16. Dissatisfied with the Authority’s response to her complaint, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

17. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to review the merits of decisions properly taken by local authorities. I understand Ms X is disappointed with the decision but there is no evidence there was significant fault by the Authority which would have affected the outcome of the application.
18. The concerns raised by Ms X were adequately addressed by the Authority and, while I note it accepted it would have been preferable had members looked at a variety of vantage points, I cannot conclude that had they done so the outcome would have been different. This view applies too to Ms X’s claim that the member who excused himself should have done so earlier and before the member site visit took place.
19. The issues Ms X and other objectors raised against the application were set out in the report to Committee, including why alternative brownfield sites, which Ms X considers to have been more suited to development, had not been the subject of an application. These objections, and the comments from the planning consultees, were all available to members who also heard in person from those speaking for and against the application at the meeting. Ms X says the Authority failed to give due regard to the large number of objectors but planning applications are not determined in accordance with the number of objections received.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault with the Authority’s actions in relation to the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman