Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application to demolish and replace a house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains for a local civic society. She says the Council failed to follow national and local policy when it approved an application to demolish a house and replace it with a new architect designed property.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out the general power to control development and use of land. Any development or change of use of land requires permission. A Local Planning Authority (LPA) may grant permission. Or it may be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
6. All decisions on planning applications must follow the Council’s local development plan unless material considerations show otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. It guides drawing up plans and is a material consideration in deciding applications.
7. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct or decrease in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
8. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to give to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
9. It is important to note that earlier decisions do not set precedents. Each planning application must be decided on its own merits against current planning policies and other considerations.
10. The Council approved a planning application to demolish a property and replace it with a new home. Mrs X complained to the Council. Her complaints included:
• the Council approved the demolition and replacement, yet it had previously refused an application to extend the original property
• the new property does not preserve or enhance the character of the area
• the Council ignored the local plan and resident’s objections
11. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. 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.
12. The Planning Officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the Officer has made their recommendation. The Conservation Officer identified there would be limited harm to the setting of the nearby listed building. The Planning Officer weighed the benefits of the scheme against the harm. The benefits include (but were not limited to) removing a deteriorating property and replacing it with a family home.
13. The Planning Officer considered the benefits of the proposal outweighed the limited harm to the setting of the listed building. This is a professional judgement and a decision the Officer is entitled to make.
14. The application was approved under delegated authority by a senior officer. While Mrs X and others may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman