Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider objections and misled committee members about a planning application. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider residents objections to a planning application. He also says the planning officer misled the planning committee to believe reduced parking provision on the proposal must be followed. And, had councillors been correctly informed, they would not have approved the application.
2. Because of this, Mr X says congestion on roads surrounding the site (including the one where he lives) will get worse. He wants the Council to instruct the developer to create additional parking spaces, for example using undercroft parking and reduce the number of flats on the site.

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. 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

5. I have spoken to Mr X and considered the information he provided in support of his concerns.
6. I have considered the information published on the Council’s website about this planning application and the relevant national and local planning guidance. I have also viewed a webcast of the meeting where the Council’s Development Control Committee considered the planning application Mr X complains about.
7. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. The Council received a planning application for 24 one- and two-bedroom flats with 24 parking spaces on a site close to Mr X’s home. This was an application on a development site which already held planning consent granted in 2016 for the building of 22 flats. The Council publicised the application and invited comments.
9. Mr X and others objected to the scheme. The planning officer wrote a report which was presented to the planning committee (known as the Development Control Committee). The report summarised the objections which include (but are not limited to):
• Inadequate parking for residents and visitors
• Irresponsible parking will lead to loss of access
• Increased congestion
• Too many flats
• Increased pollution
• The proposal will exacerbate existing parking problems
• Congestion causes problems for emergency services access
10. The planning officer’s report highlighted that parking provision on the site did not meet the requirements of the Council’s Local Plan and supplementary guidance.
11. The planning officer’s report also noted that permission had already been granted for 22 flats on the same site and the application under consideration was for two additional flats and their respective parking spaces. The deficiency in parking was recorded at the time the previous planning permission was granted in 2016 but considered acceptable given the site’s urban location and good transport links.
12. The Development Control Committee members unanimously agreed with the planning officer’s recommendation and approved the new application.

Analysis

Parking provision

13. Mr X says the Council has not made any site-specific assessments to show the reduction in the number of parking spaces for the site from 47 as required by the policy to the 24 in the application. He also says the planning officer was misleading as they gave the impression in their report and at the Development Control Committee meeting that previously reduced parking provision for other sites elsewhere in the Borough must be followed as this was an established practice adopted by the Council for a number of years.
14. The planning officer’s report specifically addresses the parking provision on the site and how this does not comply with the Council’s Local Plan. In addition to the Local Plan, the Council adheres to the County Council’s Vehicle Parking Standards, which state -

“2.5 Parking Standards in Urban Areas

1. For main urban areas a reduction to the vehicle parking standard may be considered, particularly for residential development. Main urban areas are defined as those having frequent and extensive public transport and cycling and walking links, accessing education, healthcare, food shopping and employment.”

15. The planning officer’s report states the application site is considered to be within an urban area and as a result parking provision can be reduced below the level required in the Council’s Local Plan. The planning officer’s report includes comments from the Local Highways Authority as a statutory consultee and notes it does not make any objections to the proposed application.
16. The planning officer’s report includes details of the objections received to the application and provides details of these to members at the Development Control Committee meeting. The entirety of the discussion between members related to the provision of parking (both car and bicycle) on the application site and the existing issues with parking and access in the site’s vicinity.
17. The planning officer pointed out to committee members they were essentially considering an amendment to an existing planning permission that the Council had granted in 2016 for 22 flats on the same site, which is a material planning consideration when looking at the new application. The planning officer pointed out the developer could already build on the site in line with the existing permission, which included a reduced number of parking spaces.
18. Some committee members voiced concerns about the additional burden placed on the area by the lack of full parking provision on the application site. The planning officer explained the applicant in this case could not be treated differently or penalised for deficiencies in parking provision and access caused by previous developments in the same area. The planning officer reminded committee members of their established approach to previous developments in urban areas and the need to be consistent in its decision making.
19. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
20. Mr X says the Council has not followed its own policy. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The planning officer considered the proposal was acceptable due to its urban location and access to good services and transport links in line with the guidance provided within the County Council’s Parking Standards. The planning officer has exercised their professional judgement within the remit of the Council’s established policies and procedures without fault. As there is no fault in the process the Ombudsman will not question the merits of the decision the Council made, even if Mr X strongly disagrees with this. Having had the benefit of viewing an online video recording of the Development Control Committee meeting where this planning application was considered, I have directly seen the way in which the planning officer presented their report and responded to questions from members. I am not persuaded they sought to mislead or unduly influence committee members in the way Mr X has alleged.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman