Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. She says the Council has not considered the application in line with its policy. She is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision and I have considered the comments she has raised in response.

Back to top

What I found

5. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

What happened

6. In 2018, the Council received a planning application for a development near Mrs X’s home. Mrs X objected to the application and raised concerns about the impact the proposal would have on highway safety and increased traffic levels in the area. Mrs X said that transport sustainability had not been considered and she believed a transport assessment or plan was necessary for the proposal. Mrs X also argued that it had not been shown that there was a need for the development.
7. The application was referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination and planning permission was granted subject to conditions.
8. Mrs X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with the application and says it has not been considered in line with the Council’s policy.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. This is as it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault by the Council.
10. The Council’s policy says that proposals for new or replacement community facilities in the countryside must show that the new facility is needed. In this case, the application site is located in the countryside, but Mrs X complains there is no evidence to show the development is needed. The case officer’s report does refer to this part of the policy in their report and says there are no other similar facilities in the area. The Council also says that it took account of the letters of support received for the proposal before deciding there was a potential need. Mrs X disagrees and says this is not sufficient to show the development is needed. However, as the Council properly considered this matter, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault. The case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide if there was a likely need for the development and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless there is evidence to show it was flawed.
11. Mrs X has also raised concerns about the impact the development will have on highway safety and traffic levels in the area. She says the Council has not properly considered this matter. The case officer refers to the impact on highway safety in their report before deciding the proposed development is acceptable. The Council also consulted with the local highway authority and changes were made to the plans to reflect the comments received in response. The highway authority confirmed the amended plans were acceptable and the Council applied the planning conditions it suggested.
12. Mrs X has raised concerns about transport sustainability. She says the case officer’s report does not address this issue. Mrs X also says the Council’s decision not to require a transport assessment or plan is not in line with its policy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or the local highway authority’s guidance.
13. The case officer’s report will contain a summary of the significant matters considered before deciding the application. While I would expect the report to address material issues, I cannot say it is fault for it not to reference all matters considered. The Council’s policy and the NPPF say that developments that will generate significant vehicle movements should require a transport plan. However, the Council has explained that it did not consider this necessary as the vehicle movements to and from the site as a result of the new development would not be significant. I understand Mrs X disagrees, but this was a decision the Council was entitled to make. The information from the highway authority gives examples of when a transport plan may be required. This is based on the type and size of the development. It also details other considerations such as the number of vehicle movements to and from the site. However, the document says it should be used as general guidance and a professional should be consulted. The Council did consult the highway authority and it did not say a transport plan was needed.
14. As the Council properly considered if the development was acceptable before granting planning permission it is unlikely I would find fault.
15. Mrs X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman