Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with an outline planning application for a major development on Green Belt land near her home. We do not find fault with how the Council considered the matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council acted with fault when it granted outline planning permission for a major development on Green Belt land near her home. In particular, she says the Council:
1. failed to consider the overall context of the development;
2. demonstrated bias in favour of the applicant and did not properly take into consideration the local opposition to the scheme;
3. failed to critically assess information provided by statutory consultees, particularly in respect of highways, climate, ecology and environmental impact;
4. failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and previous permissions relating to development on Green Belt land;
5. failed to consider sustainability;
6. made its decision based on a procedurally flawed committee meeting and inaccurate case officer report; and
7. removed letters of objection from its website after the decision to approve the application.
2. Mrs X says the proposed development will harm the character of the village and surrounding area, put too much pressure on local services as well as increasing the risk of traffic accidents.
3. She says this has caused her and the local community to lose confidence in the local planning system, particularly how future, related applications will be dealt with.
4. While she has complained to the Ombudsman in a personal capacity, Mrs X is the spokesperson for a local action group, made up of over 100 residents from the same village. Mrs X is represented by Mrs Y in making this complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
7. 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

8. I spoke with Mrs Y and reviewed the information provided.
9. I made enquiries of the Council, considered its response and reviewed the relevant law and planning policy.
10. I watched the recording of the Committee meeting.
11. I read the case officer’s Report and Addendum.
12. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and policy

Decision making and material considerations

13. Most development needs planning permission from the local council. People may apply for ‘outline planning permission’ to establish if development is acceptable in principle. If granted outline permission, the applicant will later need to get the council’s approval to ‘reserved matters’ before starting the development. Reserved matters may be any or all of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development.
14. Councils must consider each planning application on its own merits and decide it in line with their development plan policies, unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, promoting new housing and protecting open countryside.
15. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, and not private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct or property prices. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
16. Government statements of planning policy, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), are material considerations. The NPPF includes a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
17. Policies in emerging plans may also be material considerations. The NPPF says the more advanced an emerging plan is, the greater the weight it may give. The NPPF also says a decision to refuse planning permission because an application precedes adoption of an emerging plan is unlikely to be justified.
18. The NPPF says councils should decide applications ‘as quickly as possible, and within statutory timescales.’ The statutory timescale for most applications is eight weeks; and 13 weeks for major applications.
19. 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.
20. Normally, a planning case officer will prepare a report, assessing proposed development against relevant development plan policies and other material planning considerations. The report will draw on all the information about the development, which will be available to councillors and local people. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission. A senior planning officer will consider most reports but some go to the council’s planning committee. It is for the officer or committee to decide the weight given to any material planning consideration when determining an application. The officer/committee do not have to accept the recommendation in the report.
21. Where an application goes to a planning committee, councils usually allow both supporters and objectors to address councillors. Most councils give people three to five minutes to put their views to the committee. Councillors may ask any speakers questions but do not have to.
22. Normally, councils grant planning permission if they consider the proposed development is in line with planning policy and they find no planning reason(s) of sufficient weight to justify a refusal.

Sustainable development

23. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
24. Sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Green Belt development

25. The NPPF says inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
26. The NPPF allows for some development where it is considered to be limited infilling/ partial or complete development of previously developed land (PDL) in certain circumstances (paragraph 145(g)).

Local Plan Policy – RUD21

27. This identified the application site as Green Belt land that was suitable for development, subject to certain criteria.

What happened

28. The Council received an outline planning application to develop an area of Green Belt land with access. The site was formally occupied by the Ministry of Defence and included several redundant buildings and hardstanding.
29. The Council received a significant number of objections to the application from the local community, including the parish council.
30. A planning officer produced a lengthy report (“the Report”), supportive of the application. This included the Council’s response to the many objections.
31. Under the Council’s Constitution, because the application concerned a major development, it was referred to the Council’s Planning Committee (“the Committee”) to make the decision.
32. In June 2020, on the afternoon of the Committee meeting, the Council circulated an addendum (“the Addendum”) to the Report. This sought to correct and clarify several issues that had been raised during the consultation process.
33. Due to Covid-19, the Committee Meeting was held via Zoom and broadcast live on You-Tube.
34. The usual chairman of the Committee stepped down because he opposed the application in his other capacity as chairman of the local parish council. A substitute committee member chaired the meeting instead.
35. The Committee heard from the applicant, planning officers and objectors. Councillors were given the opportunity to ask questions about the application.
36. The Committee decided unanimously to grant planning permission.
37. In July 2020, Mrs X and other residents complained to the Council about the issues summarised at paragraph 1(a-f) above.
38. The Council provided detailed responses at both stages of its corporate complaints process. The Council, while acknowledging some learning points arose from the application, confirmed the correct procedures had been followed and there was no fault with the decision that had been made. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

39. The Ombudsman only 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.
40. I will consider each aspect of the complaint below.

The Council failed to consider the overall context of the development

41. Mrs X says the Council’s overall approach to the development was wrong because it considered it on a piecemeal basis.
42. The Council can only consider the application that was submitted by the developer. In this case, it was for outline planning permission with access. The Report made this clear and I am satisfied members understood the scope of the application and the “finer detail” would be the subject of future applications. I do not find fault here.

The Council demonstrated bias in favour of the applicant and did not properly take into consideration the local opposition to the scheme

43. Mrs X has been left with the impression that the Council, especially certain officers, were biased in favour of the applicant. I have read the Council’s records, including emails between officers and the applicant and have found no evidence of this.
44. In its complaint response, the Council explained that the role of the planning officers – that they are not “independent, unbiased witnesses”. Their role was to consider the application in detail and reach their own conclusions about its compliance with the development plan in order to make a recommendation to the Committee.
45. I agree with this analysis. The case officer was entitled to present her views on the application whether favourable to the applicant or not. It was her role to make a recommendation to the Committee. The Committee could either accept or refuse her recommendation.
46. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered the objections to the application. It was for the Council to consider the representations made by third parties and weigh up any material planning considerations set out in those representations. In judging whether a planning authority has taken account of these considerations, I have considered both the Report and Addendum. I am satisfied the Council set out objections it received in the Report, responded to many concerns raised in the Addendum and properly weighed up the evidence it received. The objections were further debated by the Committee in some considerable detail.
47. I understand Mrs X does not accept the Council’s explanation on how it dealt with application and the objections. But I am not persuaded the Council’s conduct was affected by bias and so I do not find fault.

The Council failed to critically assess information provided by statutory consultees, particularly in respect of highways, climate and ecology and environmental impact

48. Mrs X is of the view the Council’s decision was flawed because the Report, Addendum and Committee disregarded significant evidence about key issues. In particular she says the Council:
1. took the response from the highway authority at face value despite conflicting evidence having been provided;
2. ignored concerns about equine safety;
3. failed to consider the Council’s Climate Emergency Motion;
4. gave insufficient weight to concerns about the impact on ancient woodland and local ecology.
49. I am satisfied all of these issues were satisfactorily addressed as part of the decision-making process. The Council was entitled to accept the responses from statutory consultees without the need for further scrutiny. Conditions were attached to the permission to address any concerns raised, where appropriate.
50. The 42 page Addendum provided the Council’s response to the significant number of concerns raised in response to the Report.
51. From the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied the Committee was sufficiently alive to the contentious matters to make a properly informed decision.

The Council failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and previous permissions relating to development on Green Belt land

52. Mrs X says the Council:

• disregarded the emerging Local Plan. Mrs X is of the opinion the application should have been deferred until it was in place; and
• disregarded and exploited previous permissions regarding temporary use of the site for military purposes only.

53. I set out in paragraphs 24-26 what the NPPF and Council policy say about development in the Green Belt. As those make clear, neither Government guidance nor Council policy prevent development in the Green Belt. However, in each case the Council has to consider whether the development is appropriate and, where it is not considered appropriate, whether very special circumstances exist.
54. I am satisfied the Report went into detail about the impact the development would have on the Green Belt. The Report detailed the test the policy requires and discussed the impact the housing and infrastructure would have. It also addressed the particularly unique circumstances of the site, including the previous permissions and impact these had on assessment of “previously developed land” (PDL).
55. I further note both objectors (including the parish council) also addressed the Committee about their concerns that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the Green Belt and their view was that very special circumstances did not exist to support the development.
56. I appreciate Mrs X strongly disagrees with the view officers and Committee have taken about the impact the development will have on the Green Belt. However, as I have made clear, it is not my role to comment on the merits of the Council’s decision unless it is affected by fault.
57. As I am satisfied the Council properly considered how the development would impact on the Green Belt and set out the very special circumstances it considered existed to warrant approval of the application, I have no grounds to criticise it.
58. Mrs X says the Council should have deferred its consideration of the application until the emerging new local plan was in place which she says was wrongly ignored.
59. The Council explained its duties to process applications quickly and that any delay would have given rise to a challenge by the applicant.
60. I am satisfied the Council was entitled to consider the application when it did, particularly in the context of the NPPF. It had already delayed the Committee meeting for several months due to Covid-19 and government guidance reminded councils of the need to process applications in a timely fashion. The application was considered in the context of the existing local plan.
61. While I appreciate Mrs X’s view this was the wrong approach, the applicant would have had grounds to challenge the Council had it delayed further. There was no procedural fault about this matter.

The Council failed to consider sustainability

62. Mrs X correctly highlights sustainability as being at the heart of both national and local planning policies. Because of this, part of her complaint is about the Council’s apparent failure to specifically consider this important issue. Her concerns were enhanced because the Committee’s informal agenda failed to include this as a specific topic for discussion.
63. This was raised specifically by objectors during the Committee meeting and a response provided by an officer. In its first complaint response, the Council explained that “the Report runs through the environmental, economic and social aspects of the application and when read as a whole, reaches a recommendation that in the officer’s professional opinion the application should be approved”.
64. I agree with the Council’s own assessment about whether it properly considered sustainability issues. I am satisfied that the Council, despite not isolating it as a specific agenda item during the Committee meeting, had due regard to this matter as part of its decision making process.

The Council made its decision based on a procedurally flawed Committee meeting, inaccurate case officer report and unread Addendum

65. Mrs X raised several concerns about the structure and conduct of officers and councillors at the meeting including:

• Councillors’ conduct;
• apparent inexperience of the acting Chair leading to “manifest confusion”;
• use of an agenda that was not circulated in advance; and
• officers and an external advisor present at the meeting but not visible on screen.

66. She was also critical of the accuracy of the Report and late circulation of the Addendum. She says the decision makers did not properly understand the application, partly due to not being given enough time to read the papers. In her view this was evident from observing the meeting.
67. In reaching my decision about this I have had the benefit of watching the four-hour Committee meeting.
68. One incident highlighted by Mrs X, the recording shows one member saying she had not had enough time to read the Addendum. There was an apparent consensus from some other members that they were in the same position. Several questions were also asked about the site and application and reserved matters. When asked by the Chair whether a particular question had been properly answered, the member replied, “yes and no”.
69. The Council explained it was normal practice for addendum reports to be distributed when they were. It also reviewed the recording and disagreed with Mrs X’s opinion that members did not understand the application.
70. Having watched the recording and considered the Council’s comments I do not agree with Mrs X’s conclusion that members did not understand the proposals. The members had been given two weeks to read the main report and, given the complexity of some of the issues raised by the application, particularly in relation to Green Belt development, it is entirely understandable that some clarification would be sought during the meeting itself. In my view, the questions posed by the members demonstrated they clearly understood the site, including its history, the relevant planning and strategic policies and impact of the development.
71. The officers responded appropriately to the questions posed and I am satisfied, if members had not understood enough to make a decision at the end of the meeting, they had the option of rejecting the application or putting forward a motion to defer.
72. I accept there were some technical issues during the course of the four hour meeting, but I do not criticise the Council for this. Conduct of such meetings over Zoom was still in its infancy and in this context, and the numbers of participants, I consider the meeting was chaired in and appropriate and professional manner.

The Council removed letters of objection from its website after the decision to approve the application

73. In its response to my enquiries, the Council has explained this is standard policy once an application has been decided. It said there is no legal requirement to retain letters on its website, no apparent benefit and, in any event, documents are retained for four years albeit not displayed.
74. I do not criticise this approach. In the absence of any legal requirement to do so, removing the objection letters was a decision the Council was entitled to make

Conclusion

75. Before making its decision, the Council took account of the plans, relevant policy, the planning history and comments from residents and other consultees. The Council followed the process we expect, so I find no fault in the way it made its planning decision.

Back to top

Final decision

76. I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council decided to grant planning permission. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

77. Mrs X also raised concerns about the Council’s response to her requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. I have not investigated this because complaints about such matters are dealt with by the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman