Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We do not consider further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council approved a planning application based on information which it accepts contains discrepancies.
2. She wants the Council to consider whether it needs to take corrective action before it issues the planning permission.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application to build three new houses near Ms X’s home. It publicised the application. Ms X and others objected to the proposal.
7. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of the objections received. It also notes that no statutory consultees objected to the proposal. A local councillor referred the application to the Council’s planning committee. Ms X spoke to the committee, outlining her objections to the scheme.
8. Following a debate, the committee voted to approve the application subject to a legal agreement.
9. Ms X complained to the Council. She says the planning officer’s report contained:
• incorrect information on separation distances
• inaccurate information on biodiversity net gain; and
• inaccurate information about the date of land clearance.
10. She also complained the Council was inconsistent on planning history, there is a perception of bias on ecological and tree matters, and the Council failed to manage potential conflict of interests.
11. In its response to Ms X’s complaint the Council recognised:
• The report referred to a separation distance of 12.5 metres when there is a small section where the distance is 12.396 metres.
• The report includes a planning history of the site. It may include planning histories for nearby when relevant.
• The officer at the meeting gave a wrong interpretation of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).
• Applicants commission specialist reports to support applications which planning or specialist officers then review.
• The applicant cleared the site in March 2024, not between 2020 and 2023 as referred to in the report.
12. However, the Council also confirmed:
• Its residential design guide refers to a minimum separation distance of 12.5m. This is guidance only and the small section of the proposed building that is slightly closer to an existing neighbour does not mean it must refuse the application.
• The detailed comments made by the BNG officer are included in the planning officer’s report.
• Site clearance did not need planning permission, and the date of clearance is not relevant to the planning decision.
• The applicant had not presented any other applications.
• The applicant’s agent regularly makes planning applications for other residents. This is not unusual and Ms X had not provided any evidence of bias. All planning applications made by Council employees or Members are referred to the planning committee to ensure transparency.
13. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Councils’ view that discrepancies in the officer report are minor and did not affect the committee’s decision.
14. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not only to help the Council decide on the application. It is also to show the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an acceptable report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
15. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• Do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• Do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed on the issues; and
• Should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.
16. In this case I am satisfied the committee members had enough information to make an informed decision on the application. This includes information provided to them by Ms X at the meeting. We will not investigate this complaint. I do not consider the report significantly misled the committee and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Indeed, the Members could have decided to defer the decision to obtain more information, but they chose not to do so.
17. Ms X wants the Council to consider whether it should take corrective action. However, the planning permission has now been issued, and we cannot achieve this outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman