Summary: The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development on the coast. Both the planning officer and committee considered the relevant legislation and the objections received and decided to approve the application. Without evidence of fault, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains on behalf of a local heritage trust. He says the Council has failed to make a decision on a planning application involving what he says is a public green space, a park, in the proper way

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. The complainants comments on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. This complaint concerns the Council’s consideration of a planning application for five tourist accommodation beach huts and a kiosk on a hillside facing towards the sea.
8. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
9. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The planning officer visited the site and prepared a report on the scheme.
13. The report details a summary of the responses received on the scheme. This includes various statutory consultees and local objectors.
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 X says the Council has ignored the objections received and failed to follow policy. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer notes a central objection is the proposal is for development on a greenfield site which is contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan. However, the report states the site is not Undeveloped Coast or Countryside in terms of the Local Plan. Nor is it designated as a Local Green Space in terms of the Neighbourhood Plan.
16. Having considered the policies and objections the planning officer concluded the proposal is acceptable and would not result in unacceptable harm to the area and is acceptable for sustainable development.
17. Members of the Planning Committee visited the site. The Planning Committee considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. As stated above it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.
18. Mr X also complains the Council failed to respond to requests for information. It is reasonable to expect him to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). That is because this is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve the planning application; and
•  

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman