Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misleading information provided at a planning committee meeting. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a planning officer gave a misleading presentation to the Council’s Planning BoardCommittee, which had some serious omissions in relation to the impact of a proposed development onvalued local heritage assets and bats. Mr X says the Council would have reached a different decision if the presentation had not contained the misleading information. and the decision reached could have been different if it had been presented correctly. Mr X says it has caused him distress and time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and information about the development on the Council’s website
5. Should I specifically say information on the Council's Planning Portal?
6. No. I’ve amended it to say it was info about development though. This is what I’d usually say
.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the planning application for a new developmentthat application site involves the demolition of Non-Designated Heritage Assets (the farmhouse
9. Removed this as could make development identifiable
& buildings) and the setting of Listed Buildings. Mr X says the a Pplanning oOfficer omitted photos of the farmhouse complexthe Heritage Assets when presenting to the Council’s Planning Committee. He says could have altered the opinion of Committee Members. to Members of the Planning Board, which could have altered their opinion. Mr X also says the Pplanning Oofficer’s report to the Committee failed to make it clear that thea Council Cconservation Oofficer had recommended the Council refuse planning permission for the development recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds thatbecause of the impact of its the loss of the Heritage Asset.loss did amount to ‘more than substantial harm’ meant that the Council Members may have made a different decision.
10. Evidence from theThe Council’s Minutes from the Planning Board Committee meeting in July 2020
11. Don’t include dates where possible as it makes development sites identifiable.
statesays that the Committee decided benefits associated with the application scheme, including maximising the delivery of housing including affordable housing on the site, would outweigh the harm arising from the demolition on the Farmhouse and associated buildingsHeritage Asset. This would indicate that a and indicates that a wider discussion on this issue took place. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
12. Evidence from The Council Minutes from the Planning Board in July 2020 state thatthat the minutes also show that a local councillor did highlight to the Planning Board the Conservation Officershighlighted the conservation officer’s recommendation of refusal so this point was also discussed within the Planning Board meeting.by the Committee. Therefore there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the conservation officer’s comments.
13. Mr X says there were incorrect statements in Ecology Reports on the Planning Portal supporting the application as they assumed that the farmhouse & buildings areasHeritage Assets were being kept but also mentioned that they ‘’may be suitable for bats and nesting birds’’. Mr X also says a bBat Ssurvey was completed but not sent to the Council and this may have changed the Councillors Committee’s decision.
14. The Council say steps have been taken to ensure that the necessary mitigation
15. Is there anything in the minutes or officer report about this we could pull? Are there conditions in the decision notice that shows this is covered or is this just from complaint response?
will be provided for the bats when the relevant building are demolished and this will be completed under License by Natural England, notwithstanding the checks and safeguards imposed by the planning process.
16. The Planning Board Council Members did discuss the Non-Designated Heritage Asset and the Conservation Officer recommended refusal. The Council will also ensure the demolition will be completed under licence by Natural England. Therefore there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman