Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for an additional storey to an existing block of flats. Mr C says representations made on behalf of the applicant about the availability of parking misled the Planning Committee. Mr C says he will suffer from increased antisocial behaviour and a lack of parking. We have found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for an additional storey to an existing block of flats to create 10 new flats with new bin and cycle stores. In particular, Mr C says the Council’s Planning Committee was misled by representations made by a speaker on behalf of the applicant at the meeting about the availability of parking.
2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault he will suffer from increased antisocial behaviour and a lack of parking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered the information available from the Council’s public planning website and its correspondence with Mr C. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  Permission is required for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) or deemed to be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
8. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the Council’s local development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 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.
9. 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, traffic generation and noise.
10. 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. General planning policies may pull in different directions for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
11. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made.

Key events

The application

12. The Council received a planning application for an additional storey to an existing block of flats with new bin and cycle stores. The application was later amended to reduce the number of new flats from 17 to 10 and to include a construction method statement.
13. The case officer prepared a report for the Council’s Planning Committee. This set out the detail of the proposals and their relationship with neighbouring commercial and residential properties and adjacent Conservation Area. The report sets out the relevant planning history, planning policies and representations received before providing an assessment of the material considerations with a recommendation for approval.
14. The Highway Authority did not object to the proposals but commented the proposed development would increase parking demand in the area which may affect local amenity and as more applications come forward to increase the residential density in the town centre area it would consider each on a case by case basis and may ask for some form of mitigation going forward.
15. The representations set out in the case officer’s report include concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour issues relating to the existing property and various existing parking issues.
16. 
    The case officer’s report confirmed there was an existing and significant shortfall of parking spaces at the development under the Council’s Parking Standards and as no new parking was proposed this would exacerbate the existing shortfall. It was noted the Highway Authority did not object to the application and that the relevant parking standards provided that schemes for flats should be treated on their own merits based on the character of the area and the associated guidance. The report noted the representations about insufficient car parking for existing occupiers of the block and obstruction of the access causing conflict and safety issues. The case officer considered the proposals would cause harm on this issue but the harm would be limited by the highly sustainable location and the parking restrictions near the site to prevent inappropriate parking. The case officer concluded the parking harm was outweighed by the benefits from the provision of ten affordable housing units to contribute to the Council’s five year housing land supply. The case officer’s report also noted the representations about crime and anti-social behaviour and recommended a condition to secure measures to reduce opportunities for crime and create a safe environment.
17. An update report was also presented to the Committee. This explained an additional objection had been received which reiterated concerns summarised in the Committee Report. These included concerns about existing issues of crime, anti-social behaviour, homeless people sleeping in the building, insufficient car parking and litter/fly tipping. The case officer provided further comment on these in the update report.
18. There were speakers for and against the application at the Planning Committee meeting.
19. The Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Mr C’s subsequent complaint

20. Mr C contacted the Council about its decision to approve the application on 13 May 2020 and sought details of the decisionmakers. The Council replied to Mr C on 14 May to confirm the Planning Committee meeting had been held virtually and was available to view with the names being available and provided a link.
21. Mr C contacted the Council on 15 May about a misleading statement made to the Planning Committee by the applicant’s representative related to parking. The Council confirmed the decision had been issued and provided details of how to make a complaint about the applicant’s representative as this was a housing association. Mr C asked how to appeal the decision. The Council confirmed there was no third party right of appeal and provided details about how to pursue a judicial review of the decision.
22. Mr C contacted the Council on 16 May to set out two incorrect statements made by the applicant’s representative. The Council responded to Mr C on 20 May. The Council noted Mr C’s comments but considered this was ‘a positive matter’ as it indicated the Councillors were approaching the determination of applications at the Committee with an open mind and were listening to all the information provided before deciding what weight to attach to the material considerations. The Council confirmed all Committee members were trained and experienced in identifying and balancing material considerations and confirmed the application had been properly decided.
23. Mr C replied the same day to say the response did not grasp the significance of the incorrect statements and to make a complaint about the reference to ‘positive’ in the response. Mr C recalled a comment made by one of the Planning Committee Members that they had originally been considering turning the application down based on a lack of parking and Mr C considered these concerns had been wrongly laid to rest by the claims made by the applicant’s representative that sufficient parking existed. Mr C noted the claim had been based on a registry of tenants’ vehicles each tenant was required to sign to receive a fob for the parking barrier. Mr C stated this was incorrect and tenants did not sign such a register and the fobs for the building doors also worked for the parking barrier. Mr C stated tenants had to rely on inadequate parking which led to overspill outside the barrier and trespassing on neighbouring properties. Mr C stated the applicant’s representative used the non-existent register to support the second incorrect statement that overspill parking was from non-tenants. Mr C said this was also not correct and the insufficient parking spaces for tenants meant the access road was used as an overflow.
24. The Council provided a detailed response at the first stage of its complaint procedure on 1 June. This included reference to the case officer’s report that had highlighted the parking harm from an exacerbation of existing parking shortfall at the site but that this had been assessed as being outweighed by the benefits of additional housing. It was noted another speaker at the meeting had raised the issue of inadequate parking at the site and that the existing parking issues near the site from tenants of the development would be made worse by the proposals. The Council accepted another speaker for the application suggested the parking issues were not related to the existing occupiers but it was not unusual for contrary statements to be made and it was for the Planning Committee to weigh up the information provided and reach a decision.
25. Mr C emailed the Council to say the above response was inappropriate as his complaint had been against a more senior officer than the author of the response and asked for his complaint to be escalated to the Chief Executive.
26. The Council’s Chief Executive replied on 6 July and apologised for the delay. The response confirmed the ‘positive’ comment had been about the full and robust debate at the Planning Committee and did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

My assessment

27. The Ombudsman looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.
28. The case officer’s report and update report set out the material planning considerations which included the existing and significant shortfall of parking spaces at the development. The case officer provided an assessment of the material considerations including the parking issues that had been raised and accepted the proposals would cause harm on this issue but provided reasons for their view this would be limited and concluded it would be outweighed by the benefits from the provision of additional housing. The Committee also heard from speakers for and against the application who gave conflicting information about the parking issues and their cause.
29. Using what is said in a Committee meeting may help to establish positively that something was addressed, but debate will not (and cannot) cover all issues and will not establish the thinking behind a decision.
30. If something is said which is factually incorrect, it does not mean it is taken into account as the reason for a decision. It was for the Committee to weigh all the information and reach its own view of the planning merits.
31. I am satisfied the Council had enough relevant information to reach a sound decision and properly considered the material planning considerations when doing so. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the development.
32. I have reviewed Mr C’s subsequent correspondence with the Council. The Council has provided a reasonable explanation for the statement ‘a positive matter’ contained in its response of 20 May. I have also read this reference as relating to the Councillors’ balancing role rather than the provision of an incorrect statement by the applicant’s representative. I see no fault here.
33. It would have been preferable for the Council to have escalated Mr C’s subsequent complaint given this was about a response already provided by a senior officer. However, I note Mr C’s complaint was subsequently escalated and he received a response from the Council’s Chief Executive. In the circumstances, I do not consider the further involvement of the Ombudsman on this point is warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman