Summary: Mr B complains both councils, in successive planning decisions, did not properly consider his objections to a neighbouring development on highway safety grounds. We uphold the complaint finding that Taunton Deane Borough Council did not adequately address Mr B’s objections in a planning officer report. We consider this caused Mr B injustice although we do not consider the outcome of the planning applications would have been different, noting the outcome of the following planning application taken without fault. The current authority, Somerset West and Taunton Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and learn lessons from the complaint.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr B’. He complains at decisions taken by the former Taunton Deane Borough Council and Somerset West and Taunton Council to approve planning permission for five houses on a site behind his home. Mr B’s complaint centres on concerns he has around the driveway used for the development which is adjacent to the driveway to his home. Mr B says it is contrary to advice contained in Somerset County Council’s standing advice to approve more than two houses using the same driveway. He says both councils disregarded this and failed to take proper account of his objections on highway safety grounds. This includes consideration of the siting of refuse bins on collection days which residents will have to place at the end of the driveway.
2. Mr B says the Council’s approval of the development therefore compromises highway safety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and supporting information he provided, including in a telephone conversation.
• Information available from the Council’s website which details the planning history of the development at the centre of the complaint.
• Information provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries.
• Relevant national and local planning guidance where referred to in the text below.
• Comments made by Mr B on a draft decision setting out my thinking about his complaint. Somerset West and Taunton Council also had chance to comment on the draft and said it accepted the proposed findings.

Back to top

What I found

Background – the key facts

7. Mr B lives in a detached house served by a private driveway, located in a residential area. Immediately adjacent to his driveway is another driveway built to serve another detached property located behind Mr B’s home. It is this detached property and its gardens, behind Mr B’s home, which is the ‘development site’.
8. An unclassified road runs outside the entrance to Mr B’s home and the development site. It is a two-lane road although narrow in places. It has no weight restrictions and is used by buses and some HGVs. Traffic passing in a south to north direction crests a hill, shortly before reaching the entrance to Mr B’s home. Mr B says this makes exiting his or the neighbouring driveway hazardous, especially when executing a right-hand turn to go south. However, there is no history of any road traffic collisions at this location.
9. There have been three planning applications for the development site of relevance to this complaint. In 2017 the former Taunton Deane Borough Council approved development for a second property on the development site. In January 2019 the former Taunton Deane Borough Council approved another two houses on former garden land attached to the site. In May 2019 the current Somerset West and Taunton Council approved the demolition of the original house on the site and its replacement with two new houses, making five houses in total on the site.
10. Mr B raised no objection to the 2017 application, but he objected on highway safety grounds to the second and third applications. Mr B’s objections, which also go to the crux of his complaint, can be summarised that:

• Exiting from the development site will be hazardous for reasons explained in paragraph 8. The more development on site and more vehicles use it, the greater the chance of an accident in this location.
• Approving the development of more than two houses from a single private drive runs contrary to standing advice given to local planning authorities by the local highways authority which is Somerset County Council.
• The driveway serving the development does not meet the standards expected in the standing advice because of inadequate visibility splays.
• A particular hazard will arise on waste collection days. Occupiers of the development will have to move their bins for collection to the bottom of the driveway for collection. Each house could have up four bins or boxes for collection (refuse/recycling/garden and food waste).

11. Before approving the second and third planning applications for development, Council planning officers prepared reports which referred to Mr B’s objections. Those reports also took account of consultation with the County highways service.
12. The report on the second planning application noted the highways service had directed the Council to its standing advice. The report did not discuss the standing advice in any detail but contained the comment that “the proposal will result in a total of five dwellings being served from a private driveway which meets the requirement of County Highway’s standing advice”. The report noted that all the houses on the development site had storage space for waste bins and so did not need to keep bins permanently on the driveway.
13. In consultation on the third planning application the Council asked for specific comment from the highways service and a visit to the site. The highways officer did not visit the site because they had visited it previously, before commenting on the second application made less than six months previously.
14. But the highways officer did provide written comments as requested. They noted the application would increase the number of houses on the plot from four to five. They said the additional property was “not considered detrimental to the wider highway network”. This was after noting the visibility splay from the site was “not extensive” but that there was no accident record for the location. The officer concluded the location was not “inherently dangerous” therefore. The officer said the highways service therefore had no objection to the planning application.
15. The planning officer’s report noted this advice in explaining why the Council approved the third application. It also explained the County highways standing advice was guidance only and not binding on the Council. It implied that because of the highway officer’s comments the Council could not refuse planning permission on highway safety grounds. The report made the same comments as the earlier report when considering Mr B’s objection about the impact of bins on collection day.
16. In comments on this complaint the Council has said the officer’s quote in the report on the second planning application referred not to county highways advice but Government guidance contained in its Manual for Streets (2007). In response to this Mr B has pointed out the Manual also contains detailed advice on desired visibility splays and the need to cater for waste collection when approving development.

My findings

Was there fault in the decision making of either Council?

17. I consider there was fault in how Taunton Deane Borough Council considered the second planning application. Any report considering the merits of a planning application should engage with objections made by neighbours where these raise relevant planning considerations. I consider it is common ground that Mr B’s objections to development on highway safety grounds raised a relevant planning consideration.
18. The problem with how the Council approached the second planning application was that it failed to address the substance of those objections. It contained no commentary on why the Council considered the development did not pose a risk to highway users on account of the limited visibility splays. It contained no commentary on why it considered the development did not pose any specific risk on refuse collection days.
19. It noted the advice from the county highways service but failed to accurately quote what that guidance says. Mr B has correctly noted the standing advice says: “In Somerset up to two dwellings may be served by a driveway”. The Council then failed to explain why it considered approval of development justified despite this advice. The Council says when it made its reference to the standing highways advice it was referring to the Government Manual for Streets instead. But if so, this only draws more attention to the Council’s failure to consider the standing advice which the County Council specifically directed it to.
20. I consider there is insufficient evidence to find fault in the consideration of the third planning application by Somerset West and Taunton Council. I would have liked the report to engage more with the substance of Mr B’s objections. There was again no commentary on Mr B’s concerns about highway safety on waste collection days other to repeat the observations about non-collection days. But clearly on this occasion the Council had detailed comments from the highways officer and it had to give weight to those in report.
21. I consider the Council could reasonably rely on the opinion of the highways officer who considered there was no “inherent danger” in the layout of the driveway. Their advice would have made it very difficult for the Council to refuse planning permission on highway safety grounds, given the highways authority did not foresee approval leading to any increased risk to road users. This is even after allowing for the point Mr B reasonably makes, that accident figures could not take account of houses not yet built or occupied.
22. I accept that Mr B will disagree with the Council’s judgment on the third planning application. But as I explained in paragraph 3 disagreement is not a basis for us to uphold a complaint.

Has the fault caused injustice to Mr B?

23. In considering this question my starting point is to ask if it is more likely than not Taunton Deane Borough Council would have come to a different decision on the second application but for the fault I have identified. On balance I have decided that it would not have done so.
24. As the Council departed from the County Council standing advice it is reasonable to consider that it should have sought specific comments from the highways service. I cannot know for sure what the highways service would have said but it is reasonable to consider it would have been similar to the opinion the highways officer gave on the third application. The highways officer did not object to development of a fifth house on the development site, having taken account of the limited visibility splay from the driveway and the accident history for the location. I consider they would have said if they thought it undesirable to further exceed the recommendation not to site more than two houses on a single drive, contained in the standing advice. I consider logically that if the officer had no specific objection to a fifth house, they would not have recommended refusal of the second application on the grounds it would lead to four houses served by the same driveway.
25. While advice from the highways officer could be given weight, it should not be the final determinant of whether councils approve or refuse development. Their advice, whether in the standing advice document or ‘stand alone’ is only that and not binding on the planning authority. So had the highways service commented on the second application it would not have been binding on the Council. But given the lack of evidence such as any accident history to support Mr B’s concerns about highway safety I cannot think it likely the Council would have refused development on general highway safety grounds.
26. Nor do I think it likely the Council would have refused development had it engaged with Mr B’s specific concerns about waste collection. I repeat that it is disappointing neither Council fully engaged with this ground of objection. But I note some of the waste containers are small while the larger waste and garden bins are only collected on alternate weeks. These are factors the Council could reasonably have introduced into its decision making. I also note the highways officer did not comment with any particular concern about this issue when considering the subsequent application. So, on balance, I do not think it likely the Council would have refused planning permission on this ground.
27. Finally, I also note that where both the County standing advice and the Government Manual for Streets refer to desired visibility splays those documents refer to new build development. They are not necessarily applicable to small-scale development which takes place on sites such as this, which are already developed. In addition, having the status of guidance means there is no inherent fault in the Council departing from the advice, so long as it can justify such a departure. I am satisfied it could do so on this occasion for the reasons I have set out.
28. I consider Mr B’s injustice is therefore limited to a certain amount of frustration or distress that Taunton Deane Borough Council did not give enough attention to his objections to the second planning application. Somerset West and Taunton Council, as the successor authority, accepts this finding and has agreed a proportionate remedy to the complaint set out below.

Agreed action

29. Within 20 working days of this decision Somerset West and Taunton Council will:

• Provide an apology to Mr B accepting the findings of this investigation.
• Issue advice to its planning officers on the importance of engaging with objections that raise legitimate planning considerations in their reports. If the Council does not consider the objection provides reasons for refusing development it must give those reasons. If the Council chooses to depart from local policy guidance, such as the highways standing advice, it must draw attention to this and give reasons.

30. We will require evidence from the Council that it has carried out these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. For the reasons set out above I uphold Mr B’s complaint against Taunton Deane Council only. I find there was fault by the Council which caused him an injustice. Its successor authority, Somerset West and Taunton Council has agreed action to remedy that injustice. Consequently, I can now complete my investigation satisfied with its actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman