Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to explain and document why it granted planning permission for a new home. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council because its decision notes lack detail. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because there is no significant injustice caused to Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council’s Planning Committee failed to explain and document its reasons why it granted planning permission for a new home contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendations in 2020.

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’. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response and viewed the video of the Planning Committee meeting.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In 2020 the Council received a planning application to build a home near (but not adjacent to) Mr D’s property. Mr D objected to the application. The Council’s Case Officer produced a report setting out the objections and recommended refusal of the application. The Council’s Planning Committee met (virtually due to lockdown) on 23 September. Members considered the Case Officer’s report and discussed the application including whether it was in keeping with the street scene, road access, position of the site, etc. Members voted in favour of granting planning permission. The contemporaneous note of the meeting was subsequently published. It stated why a Member considered the application should be granted. It went onto say “a number of reasons for approval were discussed” and Members agreed the proposal was an acceptable design.

What should have happened

8. The Council’s Planning Committee meets to consider planning applications. Members should take account of the Case Officer’s report, but they are not bound by the recommendations. A contemporaneous note of the meeting is produced.
9. Government guidance says a council, when approving planning contrary to recommendations, should produce a “detailed minute of the reasons”.
10. The courts have found that where a Planning Committee rejects the advice of a Case Officer the information provided by a council should leave no room for “genuine doubt...as to what (it) has decided and why” (Dover District Council v CPRE Kent v China Gateway Int Ltd 2017 UKSC 79).

Was there fault by the Council

11. The Council considers its note of the planning decision to be sufficient. I do not agree. The lack of information in the note means the public would reasonably be left with genuine doubt as to how the decision was reached. Whilst the video of the meeting shows there was a fairly detailed consideration of the case the onus is on the Council to ensure the written record is sufficiently clear. In this case there should have been additional information supplied in the notes regarding what factors led the Council to approve the planning application contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendations.
12. Mr D says the decision to grant planning permission sets a precedent for inappropriate development. The Council has to consider each case on its merits and I see no evidence of fault or an injustice in this respect. In addition, the Ombudsman cannot look at a hypothetical future injustice.
13. I appreciate that Mr D disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. However, objections were considered by the Case Officer and Members. There was no fault in the actual Planning Committee meeting. Members acted in line with procedures, they had a right to vote contrary to recommendations and the video of the meeting shows a reasonably detailed consideration of the application. The Ombudsman will not question the merits of decisions where there is no fault: that applies to this part of the complaint.

Did the fault cause an injustice

14. I do not consider the fault by the Council has caused a significant injustice to Mr D. The evidence shows his objections were considered as part of the decision-making process. There is fault in the documenting of the decision, but I do not see this resulted in a significant injustice warranting redress for Mr D given he has viewed the video of the meeting.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman