Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Local Planning Authority’s decision to grant planning permission for a new access to a farm near to the complainant’s home. The Authority considered the relevant legislation and the objections received and decided to approve the application. It is unlikely further investigation will find fault. Nor can we achieve the outcome sought.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains about the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) decision to approve a planning application for a new access to a farm close to his home.
2. He says the LPA should not have approved the application as the Highways Authority objected to any increased use of the existing access. The LPA is also considering another planning application for change of use of the farm buildings to a wedding venue. Mr X says change of use of the buildings will lead to increased use of the access.
3. He wants the LPA to add conditions limiting the use of the access to the planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

5. We cannot question whether an authority’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

6. I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
10. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
11. A planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
12. The Council may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.
13. The Council received two planning applications from the owners of a farm close to Mr X’s home. One for a new access and the other for change of use of farm buildings to a wedding venue. This complaint concerns the application for a new access only. The application for a change of use has not been decided at the date of this decision
14. The local Highways Authority (HA) initially recommended the LPA refuse the application pending more information about the operation of the existing access junction. This is off a main ‘A’ road and does not meet current highway standards.
15. Following discussion with the applicants, the HA confirmed the application could be approved if it does not lead to approval of elements of the associated change of use application which would lead to increase use of the junction.
16. Mr X also objected to the application because of the dangers associated with the existing access. He said use of the farm as a wedding venue will increase the use, which is the concern of the HA.
17. The case officer wrote a report on the proposal. This includes a summary of the objections it received and the relevant local and national policies.
18. Having considered the application, the objections received and the relevant policies, the case officer recommended the application for approval.
19. A senior officer agreed with the recommendation and the Council approved the application under its scheme of delegated authority.
20. It is for planning officers (and where appropriate committee members) to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. It is also for them to decide how much weight to give opposing considerations. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
21. Mr X says the Council should not have approved the application because the second application for change of use will lead to increased use, to which the HA object. The planning officer’s report is clear that the application being considered is for access only and is separate to the change of use application. The officer decided the application will not have a detrimental impact on highway safety and is acceptable. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
22. In addition, the application for change of use of the farm buildings to a wedding venue remains outstanding at the time of this statement.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the process leading to the decision to approve the planning application for a new access. And, as the second application for change of use of farm building has not yet been decided, any increased use of the junction has not yet occurred.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman