Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered two planning applications. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made the decisions to approve the applications. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permissions or discipline a planning officer.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s Planning Officer misled the Council’s Planning Committee when he answered questions about the interpretation of local and national planning policy consultation responses. This is in relation to two planning applications for buildings exceeding 13 storeys in height.
2. Mr X wants the planning permissions declared invalid as they both breach the local plans, and the Planning Officer disciplined.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received two planning applications, I shall call A and B, for tall buildings on two different sites.
7. The minutes of the Council meeting for application A show the site is allocated in the Local Plan for mixed use development. The proposed development is considered acceptable in principle as it complies with policy and helps meet local and national development objectives.
8. The minutes also say the original scheme for the site was considered and following feedback with concerns about a 21-storey block, the tower was reduced by five storeys and other design changes. The density and height were therefore reduced.
9. Objectors present at the meeting raised concerns about the tall buildings policy. The Officer answered questions from the Committee.
10. From the information I have seen, the Committee Members considered the application, asked questions, and visited the site before making a decision to approve the application. They were also aware of the local and national planning policy.
11. I understand Mr X is not happy with the answers the Planning Officer gave to the Committee. However I have not seen any evidence to show the Committee was unsure of what it was granting permission for.
12. Application B includes three towers of 16, 14 and 9 storeys. The Planning Officer’s report acknowledges the two taller buildings exceed the height under Regulation 9 (tall buildings) of the Local Plan. However, they considered the proposal is generally in line with the proposed mass of development for the wider area. They also note the development corresponds with the heights of nearby buildings.
13. Again, the approved minutes show the Committee Members visited the site, asked questions, and considered the answers before deciding to approve the application. I am satisfied the Committee was aware of what it was granting planning permission for.
14. The Ombudsman cannot revoke the planning permissions. And the law prevents us from being involved in personnel matters, therefore we cannot require the Council to discipline the Planning Officer.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the planning applications. And we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X is seeking from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman