Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new storage and distribution building close to the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. And we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs B, complains the Council used highly irregular and prejudicial process throughout the planning process. She says:
• local green space is decreasing
• the proposal is contrary to the Council’s climate crisis declaration and its responsibility for public health; and
• the matter has had an adverse impact on her mental health and wellbeing.
2. Mrs B wants:
• the planning approval reviewed with the aim of revoking it; and
• a new application presented with a ‘proper consultation period for residents’

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In this case the Council received a planning application for:

“Erection of a storage and distribution building (Use Class B8) with ancillary office space and associated parking, landscaping, access, and ancillary works”

10. Mrs B says the application was received during the COVID 19 pandemic when public meetings were restricted. She says that many residents could not participate in an online meeting arranged by the developer and therefore could not make their views known directly to the developer.
11. The Council is not responsible for arranging or requiring meetings between residents and the developer. The Council publicised the application in the appropriate way and the public were able to submit their objections to the Council.
12. In a letter from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Chief Planning Officer encouraged Councils to continue working and making planning decisions with no changes made to statutory deadlines. Councils were encouraged to use innovative approaches to decision making.
13. A planning officer wrote a report on the proposal. The report includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from residents and the parish council.
14. An objector, the developer’s agent and two councillors addressed the Committee on the application.
15. Following a debate, the Committee decided to approve the application subject to adopting a Habitat Regulations Assessment and completion of a legal agreement.
16. Mrs B says members of the Committee were substituted at short notice and the stand in councillors would not have had enough time to read all the information on the application. The Council has confirmed the councillors were substituted between three days and one day before the planning meeting. They were given copies of the meeting agenda, reports, and papers at that time.
17. If the Committee Members believed they did not have sufficient information to make a decision on the application, they could have deferred. They did not.
18. 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.
19. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer decided the proposal was acceptable. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
20. The planning committee considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. While Mrs B may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because from the information we have seen, we are unlikely to find fault in the process the Council followed when deciding to approve the planning application.
22. Nor can the Council reconsider the application as it has already given permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman