Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications for residential developments. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained on behalf of a local resident’s action group about how the Council has dealt with two planning applications for residential developments in the area where he lives. Mr X says residents were not given a fair opportunity to object to the proposals and the decisions to grant permission were based on out of date and unadopted policy. Mr X says the development will create highway safety issues and impact protected wildlife. He also says local facilities will be overwhelmed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Outline planning permission establishes the acceptability of development, subject to latter agreement to details of ‘reserved matters’. Reserved matters may be any or all of access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development.
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 the 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 considerations in determining a planning application.
6. Where the development plan is silent or the relevant policies are out of date, planning applications must be determined in accordance with a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, or the Framework indicates development should be restricted.

What happened

7. The Council has received two separate applications for residential developments in the area where Mr X lives. One of the applications was for full planning permission, the other was for outline permission with all matters reserved.
8. Both applications were referred to the planning committee for determination and granted subject to conditions. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with the applications and is unhappy the Council has granted permission.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for residential developments in the area where Mr X lives. This is because I am unlikely to find fault.
10. Mr X has raised many concerns about both applications. He says the developments will have significant impacts on the area including increased traffic and loss of wildlife. He also says local facilities will be overburdened. However, the case officer addressed these issues in their reports before deciding the proposals were acceptable. The Council also consulted the local highway authority, and no objections were raised for either of the proposed developments. I am also satisfied the case officer’s reports make it clear which parts of the policy are out of date. Contributions towards local facilities will be secured through a legal agreement for the large residential development.
11. Mr X says residents objecting to the proposal were treated unfairly and not given enough time to prepare before the planning committee meeting for the outline application. But the Council notified residents in line with the rules in its constitution. Furthermore, even if I could say residents should have been given more notice, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice in this regard. Objectors did still speak at the meeting and members were aware of the concerns about the development before voting to approve the application.
12. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the applications before granting planning permission it is unlikely I could find fault. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman