Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council’s officers and its planning committee assessed and decided a change-of-use application for a house in his road. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in the same road as a property for which the owner has sought permission for a change of use, from a dwelling house to a children’s residential institution. Mr X complained the Council:
1. gave disproportionate weight to the planning application and accompanying material;
2. failed to recognise the needs of the vulnerable children;
3. failed to recognise traffic and parking difficulties;
4. failed to consider evidence relating to fear of crime and anti-social behaviour;
5. failed to recognise the level of noise and disturbance the development will generate;
6. did not consistently identify the number of objectors.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code;
• relevant online planning documents and maps.
5. I gave Mr X opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council gave disproportionate weight to the planning application and accompanying material. The planning process requires officers to determine what weight to give the application and assess the benefits of it in the balance with any identified adverse impacts. Officers took the view that the change of use for the house was acceptable in planning terms and the objections raised did not put forward grounds of such weight to require them to refuse the application. The weight to give to each material planning matter is a professional judgement officers were entitled to take, once they had considered the information before them from both the applicant and any supporters, and those objecting to the plans.
7. Issues b) to e) at paragraph 1. above criticise the Council’s consideration of specific aspects of the application.
8. Regarding issue b), the evidence in the planning officer report shows they considered whether the proposals for the house would be suited to its users, including the children who would be living there. Officers assessed the application, consulted with other relevant officers involved in child service provision, and reached the view that the property would be suitable to meet the needs of the children.
9. In respect of c), the Council’s planning officers consulted the relevant highways officer. The highways officer assessed the area, including the current parking provision and traffic situation, and recommended approval of the application, with some conditions. The planning officer took those highways comments and conditions on board and applied them to the planning approval recommendation.
10. The evidence of the planning officer report shows the Council considered issue d), the objectors’ fears about crime and anti-social behaviour related to the development. Officers discussed the issue at length in the report for the committee. They determined there was insufficient firm evidence on which to base such fears. After consideration of relevant information, they determined refusal of the application on these grounds would not be sustainable.
11. Regarding e), the planning officer report also considered the issue of noise and disturbance from the property. Officers noted the size of the property could accommodate various types of living arrangements allowing for numerous staff and residents, without the need for any planning permission. They took they view that a family or individuals sharing the property would likely create more demand for parking and traffic movements than the proposed use.
12. The Council’s officers were not the planning decision-makers here. Officers produced their report which was then put before the planning committee, alongside all other information, including the application documents and the objectors’ comments. It was then the role of the planning committee to decide the application by voting on it. The committee agreed with the officer recommendation and granted the permission. On any of the above issues, or any other material planning issue, it was open to all Members of the planning committee to ask for more information before voting, or vote against the application.
13. We can only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process which, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning process to justify us investigating. I realise Mr X and others disagree with the officers’ recommendation for the permission to be granted, and the planning committee’s decision which agreed with that officer recommendation. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
14. Mr X says the Council’s officers did not consistently note the number of objectors to the planning application. This would have had no bearing on the outcome of the application. An application may receive thousands of objections, but if none give material planning grounds for refusal, it should succeed. A single objection which officers or Members consider means the application is unacceptable in planning terms should result in a refusal. It is not numbers of objections which influence the planning process, but the material planning relevance and force of each individual objection.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council officers’ and committee Members’ planning assessment and decision‑making processes to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman