Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered several planning applications for sites near each other. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered two of the applications. The remaining applications have not received planning permission therefore the claimed injustice is speculative.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr B, says the Council failed to correctly scrutinise the combined effect of several planning applications in close proximity to each other. The sites are also close to a road junction with traffic lights which he says are already accepted to be over capacity.
2. Mr B wants the Council to put in place measures to reduce the speed of the progression of the already approved planning applications. This is until improvements have been made to reduce traffic delays.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B says the Council has failed to fully consider the combined impact of four specific planning applications.
7. The Council refused the first application, however the Planning Inspector granted permission on appeal. As the Council refused this first application, it did not cause any injustice to Mr B.
8. The Council considered the second planning application. A planning officer prepared a report on the proposed scheme. The report includes objections the Council received including concerns about the combined impact of multiple planning applications on traffic congestion and air pollution. The comments of the Ward Councillor requesting the Council to consider the cumulative effect that the housing allocation for the area was included in the report in full.
9. The planning officer outlined the relevant national and local policies and explained why they recommended the application for approval. The report noted paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says:

“Development should only be prevented or refused in highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”

10. The planning officer considered the proposed development, even in combination with the development approved by the Planning Inspector, would not result in a severe impact on the road network.
11. The Council’s Planning Committee considered the application. People both for and against the application addressed the Committee. It is for decision makers 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.
12. Following a debate, the Committee voted to approve the application. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this application.
13. The Council has not issued planning permission for the remaining two applications. Therefore, the injustice claimed by Mr B regarding these two applications is speculative. The Ombudsman cannot remedy speculative injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because:
• Mr B did not suffer any injustice because of the Council’s decision to refuse the first planning application
• Based on the information we have seen we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the second planning application; and
• Planning permission has not yet been granted for the remaining two applications; therefore, the claimed injustice is speculative.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman