Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for two new houses close to her home. The Council considered the relevant legislation and the objections received and decided to approve the application. Without fault in the process, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Ms X, says the Council failed:
• to consider the impact of the proposal on the Grade Two listed properties and Conservation Area
• to consider the requirements of the Conservation Area Appraisal published in 2007
• to take account of objections from residents and the Parish Council

Ms X also says the Council’s consultation process was inadequate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Planning is a regulatory function of local authorities. It is concerned with the use to which land may be put. It is not concerned with who owns the land and it is not concerned with legal rights others may have over the land.
6. Planning applications must, according to the law, be determined “in accordance with the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)
7. A council 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.
8. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) 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.
9. 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.
10. Ms X says the Council’s consultation process was minimal. According to the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, details of the planning application were:
• sent to immediate neighbours whose property adjoins the application site
• included in a site notice erected near the application site
• published in the local paper; and
• published on the Council’s website.

The Council also notified the Parish Council.

11. 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. From the information detailed in paragraph eight, the Council satisfied the statutory requirements for publicising the application.
12. The Planning Officer’s prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of the objections received, including that made by the Parish Council. The Officer also consulted the Council’s Conservation, Highways and Heritage, Environmental Health, Highways and Ecology teams. None of whom had any objections.
13. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon 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 be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
14. The report references the Conservation Area Appraisal and notes the heritage significance of the area. A detailed description is given of the location of the site. This notes the proposed houses will be built on the former car park of the local pub. The Officer states:
• the houses will follow the existing building lines
• the houses will not appear unduly prominent
• the proposed style and materials fit the historic character of the area.

In the Officer’s professional opinion, the proposal preserves the character and appearance of the conservation are and setting of listed buildings.

15. Ms X says the Council has not followed its Conservation Area Appraisal and ignored objections. I disagree. The Planning Officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the Officer has made their recommendation. They decided the application would not have a significant harmful impact on the character of the area. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
16. A senior Officer considered the Planning Officer’s report and agreed with their recommendation. Planning permission was granted under the Council’s scheme of delegation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because I have not seen sufficient evidence to show the fault in the way the Council came to its decision to approve the planning application. Also, I consider that further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman