Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approval of a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action to justify an investigation. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr Y, complains the Council:
• failed to notify residents about a planning application for a former pub resulting in a lack of objections to the various planning applications
• shows little regard for complying with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Nor the Council’s core strategy to preserve the environment, heritage buildings and openness
• ignored objections
2. Mr Y says by approving the first planning application, the Council has detracted from the rural character and openness of the area.
3. He wants extra conditions to be added to the already approved planning application

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2019, the Council received a planning application to change the use of a pub to a motorhome showroom.
8. Councils have no duty to consult the public about planning applications. Their duty is to publicise the application and take account of any representations they receive. The statutory publicity requirement for this application was for a site notice or notice to any adjoining owner or occupant and/or a site notice
9. There are no immediate neighbours to the application site. Council records show it erected a site notice and notified the nearest neighbours.
10. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council failed to meet the statutory regulations on publicity.
11. The Council received a following application to demolish part of the old pub and erect a new extension for a workshop. Again, the Council erected a site notice and notified the nearest neighbours.
12. The Planning Officer visited the site and wrote a report of the proposal. The report includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from Mr Y and the comments from the parish council.
13. The report shows the Planning Officer considers the relevant national and local policies. It confirms the proposal is to keep the oldest parts of the pub and demolish the 20th century additions. Some historical parts will be lost but the Officer did not consider these so significant that this conflicts with local policy.
14. 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.
15. Mr Y says the Council has not considered the NPPF and its core strategy. I disagree.
16. 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 determining a planning application.
17. The report lays out what legislation has been applied to the case and why the Officer has made their recommendation. The Officer decided the application conforms to the Council’s development plans, guidance and the NPPF. Having followed the correct process, this is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the planning applications. Nor do we consider that Mr Y has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.
19. Also, conditions cannot be added retrospectively to existing planning permissions. Therefore, we cannot achieve the result Mr Y is seeking.
    
    Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman