Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s consideration of a planning application for a site close to the complainant’s home.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to not to impose a condition limiting opening hours when it approved a planning application for a petrol station and shop close to his home. He says the Council failed to apply its own planning policies to reduce anti-social behaviour (ASB) He says the Council did not consider the current landscape of housing estates which has changed significantly since the station was built in the 1940's.

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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives close to a petrol station with a shop with 24-hour opening. The Council received a planning application to redevelop the site with a replacement shop, fuel pumps, forecourt, and associated facilities, again with 24-hour opening.
6. Mr X objected to the proposed 24-hour opening saying he is woken too many times at night because of ASB behaviour and noise from those walking to and from the station. He suggested the shop is closed between 10pm and 6am.
7. I have not seen any evidence to show the Council failed to follow the correct process when considering the application.
8. The Planning Officer wrote a report on the proposal. The Officer addressed Mr X’s objections as follows:

“The 24-hour operation of the fuel-filling station and retail shop on this site has been long established, and there is nothing included within these redevelopment proposals which would reasonably justify imposing a restrictive ‘opening hours’ condition which would fundamentally affect the nature of the existing and established operational of the fuel-filling station (with retail shop). Any matters involving anti-social behaviour or criminal activities would be matters for the police.”

9. The Council agreed with the Planning Officer’s recommendation and granted planning permission.
10. Mr X complained the Council has failed to consider its planning policy number CO13 for promoting high quality design which includes the following requirement:

“Design of all developments (including transport schemes) must take account of the need to promote safe living environments and reduce the opportunities for crime and the fear of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.

However, the complete statement includes:

A balance should be made to limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes, and areas of nature conservation. Development proposals should be supported by a Design Statement”

11. The Council says the above refers to reducing the opportunity for ASB within the context of design matters. I consider the reference to light pollution , landscapes etc supports this view.
12. The Council states the relevant policy in this case is number CP4 which requires:

“Development which provides for the social and economic needs of the local community”; and

“Development that is proportionate to the existing settlement size and local service provision”

13. 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 given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
14. In this case it is clear the Council considered Mr X’s objections. However, it is clear the 24-hour service station was in place before Mr X’s property was built. And the Council decided that it cannot impose restricted opening hours on a development which is the replacement of an existing petrol station with essentially the same facilities.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application to replace an existing fuel filling station and shop.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman