Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s decision to recommend approval of a planning application to make permanent an earlier temporary permission for a commercial garage near her home, and about the planning committee’s decision to grant the permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant our investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives near a property whose owner previously applied for permission to change the use of its garage from residential to commercial. The owner was given a temporary permission which expired in 2020. They applied to the Council to make the permission permanent by varying the conditions on the temporary permission which had restricted the permission’s duration. The Council’s officers recommended approval of the application and the planning committee agreed, granting the permission.
2. Ms X complains the Council:
1. was biased in favour of the planning applicant when determining the application;
2. ignored the objections of local residents;
3. granted the permission in an unsuitable Conservation Area location.
3. Ms X says the planning decision has a negative impact on residents’ quality of life, health and property values, and on the local Conservation Area. She says the garage will cause noise and air pollution. Ms X wants justice done, and an investigation to find out why the planning committee granted the permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Ms X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. We cannot go behind the professional judgement decisions of council officers or elected Members unless there has been fault in the processes they have followed which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different decision.
8. Ms X considers the Council was biased in favour of the applicant. National government guidance to local planning authorities is to support development unless there are good reasons why a particular one should not be permitted. This process can and often does include councils and applicants working together during an application to find solutions to planning issues raised by the permission being sought. Within this broader planning context, I have not seen evidence the Council acted in a biased way in favour of the applicant or their application which would give us grounds to investigate.
9. Ms X says the Council ignored the objections made by residents against the application. The Council’s planning officers summarised and reflected in their report to the committee the objections they received. Where those objections raised material planning issues, the report responded to them and explained why officers did not consider them to be sufficient grounds to recommend refusing the application. There is not enough evidence that officers ignored residents’ or any other party’s objections here which would warrant us investigating.
10. As part of their assessment of the application, officers considered the sensitivity of its location in a Conservation Area. They took the view that the impacts of the development on the area, including noise, traffic, parking and fumes, were not sufficient for them to recommend committee Members to refuse the application. In reaching their view, officers took account of the relevant factors, including material objections made based on the garage’s specific location.
11. I have not seen enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning process which would warrant our investigation. I realise Ms X disagrees with the officers’ recommendation to approve the application. But it is not fault for a council to properly form a view with which someone disagrees.
12. The decision-making body here was not the Council’s officers but the sitting Members on the planning committee. I note Ms X wants us to investigate why Members voted as they did. But I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the planning process to support an investigation by us. If the Members disagreed with any aspect of the officers’ report they considered crucial to their planning decision, or with the recommendation to approve the application, it was within their power to vote to refuse it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning process to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman