West Dorset District Council (18 015 615)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 30 Apr 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a housing development near their home. Mr and Mrs B say the approved housing development will affect the view from their property and will cause traffic congestion. Our view is the Council was not at fault for the matters complained about.

The complaint

  1. The complainants, who I will refer to as Mr and Mrs B, complain about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a housing development near their home. Specifically, Mr and Mrs B complain:
    • The case officer engaged in over-familiar email correspondence with the applicant with the shared goal of achieving planning permission.
    • Council officers decided the application rather than the Council’s planning committee, despite the town council objecting to the application.
    • The Council did not make sure the housing need analysis was correct which has meant the approved scheme does not meet the local housing need.
    • The Council did not take any action in response to blatant inaccuracies in the application which they reported.
  2. Mr and Mrs B say the approved housing development will affect the view from their property and will cause traffic congestion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. 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

  1. I have considered Mr and Mrs B’s letter of complaint and the supporting information they sent. I have considered the Council’s responses to the complaint and information about the planning application, which is available on the Council website. I have also shared a draft version of this statement with Mr and Mrs B and the Council, and have considered the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Council has a scheme of delegation which allows the Head of Planning to decide most planning applications, rather than the Council’s planning committee. The scheme says where a town or parish council in the area where the application is situated makes a recommendation which is contrary to the proposed decision, the Head of Planning will consult with the Chair of the planning committee to decide whether the application should be decided by the planning committee.

Legal background 2 – The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

  1. The NPPF sets out the government’s planning policies and how it expects these to be applied. Paragraph 38 of the NPPF says:

Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

What happened

  1. In 2017 the Council received a planning application for a proposed social housing development in Mr and Mrs B’s local town. Mr and Mrs B objected to the application for several reasons. Mr and Mrs B say the applicant included false distances and information in the application, including statements that the site is within easy walking distance to local shops and services and that the development would not be visible from the road where they live.
  2. The local town council considered the proposal (which had since been amended by the applicant) at a meeting in summer 2018. The town council recommended the application for refusal. The town council told the Council its recommendation the next day.
  3. The case officer for the application then sent an email to the Chair of the planning committee to ask if the application should be decided by the planning committee. The Chair of the planning committee responded by saying the application did not need to be decided by the planning committee. The Head of Planning also sent an email to the case officer saying she agreed that the application could be decided by officers under delegated powers.
  4. Mr and Mrs B put in a complaint to the Council in early October about the way it was handling the planning application. The Council responded to the complaint under both stages of its complaints procedure. The Council did not accept it was at fault.
  5. During this period, the Council added an email trail to the online planning record on the Council website.
  6. The emails were between the Council case officer and the applicant and were sent before the application had been decided. Mr and Mrs B say these emails were unprofessional and over-familiar.
  7. In late 2018 the Council decided the application. Council officers decided the application, rather than the Council’s planning committee. The Council wrote a case report setting out its consideration of the proposal. The Council granted planning permission subject to conditions.
  8. Mr and Mrs B say the housing need analysis used by the Council was not correct. Mr and Mrs B say there is a mismatch between what is needed (small one bedroom housing units) and what is being provided at the housing development (mainly two and three bedroom units).
  9. Mr and Mrs B were not satisfied with the Council’s response to their complaint, so they complained to us in early 2019.
  10. Mr and Mrs B say the approved housing development will affect the view from their property and will cause traffic congestion.

Analysis

  1. I will now address each of Mr and Mrs B’s complaints.

The case officer engaged in over-familiar email correspondence with the applicant with the shared goal of achieving planning permission

  1. I have considered the emails which Mr and Mrs B complain about. I do not consider the emails are evidence of unprofessional conduct by the Council case officer. The content of the emails is not inappropriate or evidence of bias. Also, the case officer was not at fault for working with the applicant to try to achieve a suitable scheme. This is in line with the NPPF.

Council officers decided the application and not the Council’s planning committee, despite the town council objecting to the application

  1. The Council decided the application in line with its scheme of delegation. The Council was correct to ask the view of the Chair of the planning committee on how the application should be decided after the town council recommended the application for refusal. Both the Chair of the planning committee (after seeking the views of members) and the Head of Planning considered the application did not need to be decided by the planning committee. So, the Council was not at fault for not referring the application to be decided by the planning committee.
  2. Mr and Mrs B say the case officer has decided to overrule and ignore the town council’s objections and suppress any opportunity for debate. I disagree. The case officer acted in line with the procedure set out in the Council’s scheme of delegation. Also, the case officer considered the town council’s objections in the case report.

The Council did not make sure the housing need analysis was correct which has meant the approved scheme does not meet the local housing need

  1. In the case report the Council gave detailed consideration to the issue of local housing need. The Council consulted its Housing Enabling Team Leader for their view on demand for social housing in the local area. This was appropriate given the scheme is for social housing.
  2. Also, it is clear from the case report the Council considered the most up to date figures, provided by the Housing Enabling Team Leader in October 2018, before making its decision.
  3. Mr and Mrs B say the proposed scheme does not meet the local housing need because it provides mainly for larger housing units. But, the Council was fully aware of this objection, which was also shared by the town council. In the case report the Council explained why it considered the mix of dwelling sizes was acceptable.
  4. I recognise Mr and Mrs B disagree with the Council’s assessment. But, the information does not suggest the Council’s assessment was affected by fault. So, I cannot say the Council was wrong to decide the scheme was acceptable.

The Council did not take any action in response to blatant inaccuracies in the application which they reported

  1. Mr and Mrs B consider the applicant made several inaccurate statements in the planning application. These statements were about the distances and means of travel from the development site to nearby shops and amenities. Also, Mr and Mrs B say the applicant wrongly said the site is not visible from their road.
  2. Mr and Mrs B say the Council did not ask the applicant to remove these inaccurate statements when they put in changes to the scheme.
  3. My view is that some of these statements are a matter of judgement rather than clear errors. For example, Mr and Mrs B challenge the applicant’s statement that a route is easily walkable.
  4. But, in any case the information does not suggest these statements by the applicant affected the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. In the case report the Council noted that the site is visible from elevated viewpoints in the local area. The Council explained what action had been taken to reduce the visual impact of the development. Also, the location of the proposed development and its proximity to nearby shops and amenities is clear from the plans put in with the application. In addition, the exact distances to nearby shops and amenities were not material to the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was not at fault for the matters complained about. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings