Summary: Mr D says the Council did not properly consider objections to a planning application. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to take account of the impact a residential development would have on him when considering the planning application. In particular, he refers to noise, flooding and drainage problems and traffic congestion.
2. Mr D also referred in his complaint to the potential impact the development would have on bats and the gradient of a slope on the site.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I am looking at the first part of Mr D’s complaint. I am not investigating the issue of bats or the gradient for the reasons set out below.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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. I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
7. I have written to Mr D and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.
    

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. In August 2018 the Council received a planning application to build 20 new homes near to Mr D. At the end of that month the Council sent residents neighbour notification letters allowing them a chance to comment on the application. There were subsequent amendments to the plans by the developer and the Council sent out additional neighbour notification letters in November and December. It also notified statutory and non-statutory consultees including the Lead Local Flood Authority, Environment Agency and Highways.
9. The Council summarised the responses to the planning consultation in a Planning Committee Report. The detailed report set out the objections from residents including potential increase to traffic and loss of parking along with drainage issues. It looked at each point in some detail and noted there were no objections regarding the highway from the Highways Engineer. The developer had made provision for parking for existing residents and it was not considered that 20 homes would generate a significant amount of additional traffic. In respect of drainage and flooding the Local Lead Flood Agency and Environment Agency had no objections. The Council voted in favour of planning permission with conditions including parking provision and the submission of a detailed drainage scheme.
10. Mr D sent a complaint about the decision on 19 March to a Councillor rather than direct to the Council. I have no information about whether this was responded to. In August and September Mr D made direct contact with the Council about his complaint and provided a copy of his original complaint. He said highway and parking matters were misrepresented at the Planning Committee meeting and queried why no drainage plans had been considered.
11. The Council replied on 31 October, it was satisfied the Planning Committee had reached a decision based on accurate information. It did not accept the Committee had been misled about parking and explained that one of the planning conditions required a detailed drainage scheme which would require approval by the Council.

What should have happened

12. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use). Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land. It may also be granted subject to a legal agreement to make otherwise unacceptable proposals acceptable in planning terms.
13. The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. It constitutes guidance in drawing up plans and is a material consideration in determining applications.
14. Where the development plan is silent or the relevant policies are out of date, planning applications must be determined in accordance with a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, or the Framework indicates development should be restricted. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking and traffic generation.
15. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
16. When the Council receives a planning application it must consult residents who live near to the development site along with other statutory consultees. Their comments are considered and collated into a Planning Committee Report. The Planning Committee then consider the application and vote on whether to approve it.
17. Complaints about planning should be made to the Council direct. It will acknowledge receipt within five working days. Depending on the nature of the complaint the Council should reply within a maximum of 35 working days.

Was there fault by the Council

18. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.
19. Mr D says the Planning Committee was misled and given inaccurate information. I have not seen any evidence of this. The Council carried out a full consultation process and sought views from statutory and non-statutory consultees along with residents. It took full account of the responses. There were no objections from the statutory consultees to the application. The Planning Committee report clearly shows the Council followed the correct process when considering the application. It looked at the key concerns raised by residents and set out why these did not prevent approval of the application. I understand Mr D disputes the facts and feels that parking will be an issue along with drainage and flooding. However, the Committee had the right to approve the application even if Mr D disagrees. The Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decision making in the absence of fault: that applies to this case as I have found no procedural fault.
20. In respect of Mr D’s complaint. He did not initially send his complaint to the Planning Team or the Council’s Corporate Complaints Team which is where planning complaints should be directed. Once the Corporate Complaints Team were in receipt of the complaint it provided a reply within a reasonable timeframe. I see no evidence of fault by the Council in this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

22. I am not looking at the potential impact on bats or the gradient of a slope on the site, neither of these issues pose a potential injustice to Mr D and there is no basis to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman