Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for a site close to his home. We will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, says the Council granted planning permission for a development close to his home without following the correct process.
2. He also complains the Council failed to respond to correspondence in time.
3. Mr X wants the planning permission revoked and the application resubmitted. He also wants the Council to enforce on-site parking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:
• all the correspondence sent to me by Mr X
• the Council’s responses to his complaint
• relevant planning legislation
• planning application information on the Council’s website; and
• Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision

Back to top

What I found

Legal background

6. Planning is a regulatory role of local authorities. It concerns the use of land. It is not concerned with who owns the land or legal rights others may have over the land.
7. Planning applications must, according to the law, be determined “in accordance with the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)
8. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on 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 given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
9. Councils have a statutory duty to publicise applications and to consider representations (either for or against the application) which people make. This is not the same as consulting with the public.
10. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
11. Case officer’s reports are not just to facilitate the decision. They show that decisions were made properly and correct processes followed. Without a satisfactory report, we cannot know whether the Council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
12. However, the courts have made it clear that:
• case officer reports do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are aware of the issues; and
• case officer reports do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principle and any controversial issues.
13. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.

What happened

14. The Council received a planning application to build a residential annexe to provide independent living for users with mental and/or physical disabilities under the supervision of an existing care home.
15. The Council publicised the application.
16. Mr X’s rear garden shares a boundary with the application site. He and his family made several comments on the application including but not limited to:
• plans show a tree on his property in the wrong location. It contributes to the character of the area and the proposed development may damage it.
• the soil is weak, therefore an arboriculture survey is required
• the Council did not display the site notice correctly
• the development may cause noise and light pollution
• an increase in use of the driveway will impact on the already poor visibility from within the site
• the existing class use for the building is c3(b) which covers up to six people living as a single household. Adding a separate self-contained annexe will enable two households to live independently which is not covered by class c3(b)
17. The case officer prepared a report of the scheme. This notes the proposal is for a detached outbuilding to provide self-contained accommodation with a kitchen, shower and toilet, living room and single bedroom.
18. The report notes the existing class use for main property. However, Case Officer professional opinion is the proposed annexe is similar to a “granny annexe” application and does not alter the existing class use.
19. The Council’s tree officer was consulted. They noted the main area of the site is concreted. Mr X’s tree is mentioned but the officer considers this to be subservient to other trees. It does not warrant protection from a Tree Preservation Order. Its species is relatively tolerant of root disturbance and the development is unlikely to adversely affect it.
20. The report also states:
• the proposed single storey building is within a built-up area
• it is of unobtrusive design and not visible in the street scene
• there will be no separate access created
• the proposed building replaces existing buildings which will be demolished. Mr X’s rear garden is screened with trees and a fence.
• the residents of the home do not drive and only one extra staff member is required.
• the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal
21. After outlining his views on the application, the Case Officer recommended approval. A senior officer agreed with the recommendation and the application was approved under delegated authority.

Assessment

22. When assessing planning complaints, we need evidence to show there was fault in the process. And without the fault the outcome of the planning application is likely to have been different.
23. We also need evidence to show the complainant was caused a significant injustice by the Council’s actions.
24. In this case, I can see that:
• The objections received from Mr X and his family were summarised in the report
• the proposed single storey building replaced existing outbuildings in a built-up area
• the Tree and Landscape office did not object
• the Highways Authority did not object; and
• the Council considers that six residents occupying the main home and annexe meets the existing class use
25. The law requires the Council to publicise an application by site notice or by writing to those properties which share a boundary with the site. The Council is not required to display a site notice in this case.
26. I consider that further investigation is unlikely to lead to a finding of fault or demonstrate the outcome of the planning decision would have been different. For these reasons, I do not intend to investigate this complaint.
27. Turning to Mr X’s complaint about delays in responses to his correspondence. The Council recognises the delays in responding to his correspondence about the permitted use of the existing house on the development site and to his complaint. It has apologised for this delay and asked the relevant director to ensure such matters are dealt with urgently.
28. While we would expect the Council to respond in accordance with its complaints policy, I do not propose to investigate this issue further. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone, if we do not intend to investigate the substantive issue. This is because we do not consider delays in the complaints procedure to cause a significant personal injustice sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I will not investigate this complaint. From the information I have seen we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions which, if had they not occurred would have led to a different planning decision. Also, Mr X wants the planning permission revoked. This is not something we can achieve for him.
30. Turning to Mr X’s allegations that the Council provided contradictory or false information and the acknowledged delays in responses. I will not investigate this point alone. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about such matters when we are not dealing with the substantive issue, in this case the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman