Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleges it consistently failed to adhere to a planning policy agreed in 2007 when it considered various planning applications for developments in the local area.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X complains on his own behalf as well as on behalf of members of a local residents’ group. Mr X says the Council consistently failed to adhere to a planning policy agreed in 2007 with owners of properties on a private road in Winchester. The policy is set out in an area design statement.
2. Mr X says there has been overdevelopment of a succession of plots in the area, the latest of which involved a planning application for four houses on a previously single plot of land. This was approved in 2020. Mr X says the result of the planning decisions is that woodlands on a local road has become orphaned; a dangerous situation has been created for pedestrians at the developments due to parking; and drainage was not adequately assessed prior to planning approval in the area with no mains drainage. Mr X says unqualified highways officers from Hampshire County Council were allowed to give evidence to the Council’s planners and planning committee without question.
3. Mr X wants the Council to resolve the ownership of the woodlands; rescind the planning approval for the 2020 planning application; and review the area design statement so it adheres to the wishes of local residents agreed in the document.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. 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

8. I considered the complaint and background documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

9. There have been a number of planning applications in the vicinity of the homes of Mr X and the local residents’ group. Their concerns arise because of the planning approvals in the area. The Ombudsman cannot consider their concerns about planning approvals that were granted more than 12 months ago. This is because of the time restriction on the Ombudsman’s ability to consider complaints. A complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of a complainant’s awareness of the subject of the complaint.
10. So, my focus here is primarily on the 2020 planning application. However, I bear in mind that Mr X’s concerns about the 2020 planning application draw upon criticisms of earlier planning applications. I cannot consider earlier matters because of the time restriction but I will touch upon them to an extent.
11. The application was determined through delegated powers. The planning case officer summarised the objections the Council received from Mr X and others.
12. For the purposes of this investigation it is not necessary to set out in great detail the facts of the case. I do not intend to set out Mr X’s objections in this statement for reasons of brevity and anonymity. They are of course known to Mr X and the Council.
13. I note the delegated report included information on the site, the proposal, the relevant constraints, the consultation process that had been conducted, the representations that had been received and an assessment of the planning issues.
14. The planning officer considered the 2020 planning application in the context of a previous approval in 2018. The difference between the two applications was the addition of one house. So the officer referred to the 2018 approval considerations and then reached a judgement on whether an additional house would make a material change to the 2018 approval. The officer’s judgement was that the additional house would not materially change the Council’s 2018 decision. So, on matters of concern such as overdevelopment; highway safety; or the application of the area design statement, the officer’s judgement was the same.
15. On residential amenity, the officer considered the impact of the additional house on the nearest neighbouring houses.
16. I do not find fault with the Council’s consideration of the 2020 planning application.
17. Planning authorities are required to have regard to all material considerations. What amounts to a material consideration is a question of law. That is for the courts to adjudicate upon. The weight to be given to such material considerations – and the part any particular material consideration should play in a decision-making process – is a question of judgement and is a matter entirely for the local planning authority.
18. So, for instance, when Mr X says the Council did not adhere to the area design statement, I do not find fault because the planning officer noted the policy in the officer report. However, the officer did not consider the policy outweighed other material considerations such as the 2018 planning approval. The officer explained how she placed weight on various material considerations in the report.
19. On the matter of drainage the officer imposed a condition requiring the applicant to submit drainage details for the Council’s approval before commencing the development. I note Mr X considers this was inadequate but it is the practice followed by local planning authorities because drainage is a building control matter. I do not find there was fault because the Council follows this practice.
20. To address residents’ concerns about highway safety during construction, the officer imposed a condition on the application requiring a construction management plan. The officer consulted the Highways authority and that authority did not have concerns about highway safety because of the proposed development. Whether the Highways authority has properly qualified officers is not a question for the Council to address.
21. I am satisfied the report set out the material considerations that applied to the application and provided reasoned justification for the judgement reached by the officer. I do not therefore find fault by the Council in this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I closed this complaint this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised here.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman