Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recent planning decisions and the way the Council has handled the development of a site on the complainant’s road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has dealt with the most recent planning applications to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, complained about recent planning decisions and the way the Council has handled the development of a site on her road.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the planning information the Council has published on its website.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mrs B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs B complained that the Council failed to consider properly pedestrian safety and the need for a pavement. The Council had taken a decision in 2019 to remove a condition requiring the developer to provide a pavement. Mrs B told us she did not know about this application so she did not have an opportunity to object to it. She told us the most recent planning application is the end result of the complex planning history of the site.
7. When the Council considered the application in 2019, it had to reach a view on whether the individual planning application under consideration of itself necessitated the pavement. In general terms, councils must grant planning permission unless they consider there are sufficient material planning reasons not to do so. The Council’s highways consultee reappraised the development proposal. The view the highways consultee reached was the footway provision did not meet planning tests because it was not needed to make the proposal acceptable. It may judge something would be beneficial but it would not be necessary to make an unacceptable proposal development acceptable.
8. When dealing with complaints about the granting of planning permission, we cannot consider whether the decision was right or wrong. It is the role of the planning authority to decide an application. We look at whether there has been administrative fault in the way the Council made its decision to approve the application. Mrs B’s view is the provision of a pavement is necessary for pedestrian safety. It is not for us to determine whether or not this is the case. While Mrs B strongly disagrees with the decision the Council reached in 2019, the report on the application shows the Council considered the issue. We would not criticise the Council for having regard to the views of the highways consultee.
9. We have no power to revoke the planning permission or to require the Council to provide a pavement. It is for the Council to decide how it will allocate its resources in its highways budget to address the highway safety concerns residents have raised.
10. In the case of the most recent planning application, the planning officer was not at fault in saying the pavement issue had been considered previously and the Council’s highways consultants did not object to the proposed development.
11. Mrs B believes there was an element of bias and predetermination in the way the Council has dealt with the development of the site. Predetermination is not the same as being predisposed to what is proposed. The planning case officer was entitled to reach a professional judgement on the application, whether favourable to the applicant or not. The Council had to have regard to the planning history and its policies. Mrs B maintains the proposed development does not comply with some of the Council’s planning policies. Compliance with planning policies is a planning judgement. It was for the council’s planning officer to reach a judgement on whether the objections to the planning application justified refusing it. The planning officer’s report summarises the material planning considerations and representations members of the public had made. The report confirmed Human Rights legislation had been considered. The case officer’s report is evidence these relevant issues were considered in the decision-making process. It is for planning officers to judge how much weight to give to each material planning consideration.
12. Mrs B said the Council should have referred the application to the planning committee after the parish council objected to it. The Council has said the case officer did not see the parish council’s comments before writing his report on the following day. A senior planning officer, the committee chairman or vice chairman and the local councillor would need to agree the parish council had raised material planning considerations before an application could be considered by a committee. Mrs B disagrees with the Council’s view the parish council’s objections did not warrant the planning committee’s consideration. She thinks the Council has been unreasonably dismissive of the parish council’s objections. The Council has explained the reasons for its view. The Council had considered the need for a pavement in 2019. It had considered drainage issues. The planning enforcement issues were a separate matter.
13. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. While the Council failed to check if it had received the parish council’s objections before issuing planning permission, there is no indication the case officer’s consideration of the parish council’s comments would have resulted in the Council refusing planning permission.
14. In this case there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has dealt with the most recent planning applications to justify an investigation. An investigation could not overturn the Council’s planning decisions.
15. Mrs B told us there is a current planning enforcement issue which the Council’s planning enforcement team are pursuing. That is a separate matter. Mrs B can make a fresh complaint about this issue if it is not resolved to her satisfaction.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has dealt with the most recent planning applications to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman