Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council’s failure to act caused him pain and suffering, had an impact on residents, and ruined the landscape. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about the way the Council handled a planning application for a development near his home. He complains that the Council:
1. granted planning permission against government policy, the Council’s highways department advice, and its own officers, having refused an earlier application;
2. granted retrospective planning permission instead of taking enforcement action on breaches of planning conditions; and,
3. described a heritage area as an “urban environment” in order to deceive the Ombudsman.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failure to act has caused him pain and suffering. He says it has had an impact on residents, and has ruined the landscape.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Planning applications and planning permission

7. The law says councils should approve planning applications that are in line with policies, unless other material planning considerations suggest otherwise. Material planning considerations include overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
8. Councils’ planning powers are discretionary. It is for the decision maker to decide how much weight to give to any material planning consideration when deciding a planning application.
9. A council must be able to show it has thought about the material planning considerations. The case officer’s report is usually the evidence to show how the council thought about the material planning considerations and what the council made of them.
10. Normally, a case officer will prepare a report. The report will say whether the case officer recommends granting or refusing planning permission. A senior planning officer will then decide most applications, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application.
11. The Ombudsman will consider whether the decision makers had enough information in front of them to make an informed decision.
12. When a council gives planning permission, it often includes conditions. The applicant must give written details of how they will meet, or have met, the conditions. Once the council has approved, the applicant has ‘discharged’ (completed) that condition.
13. If an applicant has not complied with the planning permission, a council may decide to take enforcement action.

Planning enforcement

14. Government guidance explains how councils should use their enforcement powers. A council should only take enforcement action if it is proportionate to do so. In reaching a decision, councils should consider what harm the unlawful development causes the public. If a council decides it would approve a planning application, it is not likely that further enforcement action would be in the public interest.
15. The law says that if something has been built which is not in line with the approved plans, a person (the applicant) can apply for retrospective planning permission. A council will then assess that new planning application on its own merits. The fact that works have been done that were not in line with approved plans is not a reason to refuse a retrospective planning application.

What happened

16. In 2019, the Council refused a planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. The applicant made some changes to their application and submitted a new planning application. The Case Officer recommended that this new planning application be approved.
17. The Council’s planning committee considered this planning application. The committee heard the objections to the plans. The committee approved the planning application and attached conditions to it.
18. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the buildings were not being built in line with the approved plans. The Council then began investigating possible breaches of the planning permission.
19. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. The Council said its planning committee had considered Mr X’s objections. The Council said its highways engineers did not support the original planning application. It said the highways engineers did not object to the new application. It said the planning committee discussed parking and highway safety at length.
20. The Council said the new planning application had reduced the scale of the proposed development. It said there would be fewer flats and a smaller rear extension.
21. In 2020, the Council’s planning enforcement investigation found the applicant was not building the development in line with the approved drawings. The applicant submitted a retrospective planning application to ‘regularise’ (meaning resolve) the breach.
22. The Case Officer visited the site and assessed the retrospective planning application. The Council approved the retrospective planning application and attached conditions to it.
23. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Granting planning permission against policies and officer advice

24. Mr X complains that the Council granted planning permission against government policy, the Council’s highways department advice, and its own officers, having refused an earlier application (part a of the complaint).
25. I find the Council considered advice from its highways engineers. The highways engineers did not support the first (original) planning application. The Council refused this application. But the highways engineers did not object to the second application, which the Council approved.
26. I find the Council assessed the second planning application in line with government policies, as well as local and national policies. I find no evidence that shows the Council approved the second application against the advice or views of a Council officer.
27. Councils are entitled to approve a second planning application if the proposal is amended so it is acceptable in planning terms. In this case, I find the Council considered the second planning application on its own merits, as it should have.
28. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Granting planning permission instead of taking enforcement action

29. Mr X complains that the Council granted retrospective planning permission instead of taking enforcement action on breaches of planning conditions (part b of the complaint).
30. The Council investigated Mr X’s claim that the development was not being built in line with the approved plans. The Council began an enforcement investigation. The Council found breaches. The third planning application was a retrospective planning application to ‘regularise’ (or resolve) those breaches.
31. As I have said above, the law says that if something has been built which is not in line with the approved plans, the applicant can apply for retrospective planning permission. This is what happened in this case.
32. I find that the applicant was entitled to submit a retrospective planning application. This is in line with the law. The Council assessed the retrospective planning application on its own merits. This is also in line with the law. The Council is entitled to ‘regularise’ (or resolve) planning breaches in this way. The Council does not have to take enforcement action just because there is a breach of planning permission.
33. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Describing a heritage area as an urban environment to deceive

34. Mr X complains that the Council described a heritage area as an “urban environment” in order to deceive the Ombudsman (part c of the complaint).
35. The Council says calling the site an urban area “implies nothing more or less than simply making the factual point that the site is part of a built-up area”. I agree with the Council in its description of the area. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
36. Mr X says the Council should have said that the site is in the Saltaire UNESCO world heritage site buffer zone. He says there are different planning policies and strategies for that zone which are about preservation of historic buildings.
37. The Case Officer described the site in their report. The building in question is not a historic building. I find that the Council assessed the planning applications in line with national and local policies as it should have.
38. When I asked Mr X why he believes the Council described the area as an urban environment to deceive the Ombudsman, he says it was clearly to deceive someone. He says he believes this because he cannot understand why the Council refused the first planning application but approved the second one. He says the Council’s refusal then approval are contradictory.
39. I find that the second planning application was noticeably different to the first. The second application was for a smaller development with fewer flats and more parking. The Council is entitled to refuse one planning application but approve a second. This is what happened here.
40. Mr X says the second application did not meet national standards for new dwellings. He says the Council granted planning permission for dangerous balconies outside the regulations. He says the Council refers to non-existent parking spaces.
41. I do not agree with Mr X. I find that the Council approved the second planning application and retrospective planning application in line with national and local policies. I find the Council appropriately considered parking spaces. I do not find fault with the Council here.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman