Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to allow events on land it controls. We did not investigate this complaint further because it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy or any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X acts on behalf of a residents’ group. Mr X complained the Council granted itself planning permission to carry out events on its land, even though it had approved a more restricted permission in an earlier planning approval.
2. Mr X said the new permission no longer protects residential amenity in the area. Mr X would like the Council to withdraw its most recent permission and insist on controls required by an earlier approval.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report for the planning committee. This report is available to view on the Council’s website.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
9. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
11. Once approval is granted, an applicant can submit new proposals that are significantly inconsistent with early permission. It is up to the Council to decide whether to approve these new applications, though we would expect them to consider the planning history of the application site. Original approvals may remain enforceable, insofar as they are consistent with new approvals that supersede them.
12. Councils sometimes need to seek approval for their own developments and land uses. When this happens, the decision is made in public before the Council’s committee. The committee is made up of members who are elected to represent the public.
13. Councils cannot take formal enforcement action against themselves, though we expect them to follow the same processes and standards as they would for any private individual applicant.
14. Councils have the power to create Conservation Areas. These are areas considered to have special architectural or historic interest that should be preserved or enhanced.
15. Councils are under a duty to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing Conservation Areas when making decisions on planning applications. Even if a proposed development is outside a Conservation Area, councils may take account of the impact it will have upon the Conservation Area itself.
16. Trees in Conservation Areas are protected by regulations. An individual who intends to remove or carry out work on trees in Conservation Areas need to give prior notification to the Council, so it may decide whether to protect the tree.

What happened

17. About a decade ago, the Council’s planning committee approved an application for festivals and events to take place in two areas of open space in a Conservation Area. The permission included a condition restricting the number of days the sites could be used under the permission.
18. The Council’s records show that further similar and related permissions were granted, until a new application was received last year.
19. The Council’s planning case officer wrote a report about this most recent application, which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from the public and other consultees;
• relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and the conservation area; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
20. The planning committee approved the application subject to conditions.

My findings

21. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
22. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
23. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
24. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
25. I should not investigate this complaint further and my reasons are as follows:
• Mr X has complained the Council’s most recent decision is inconsistent with judgements it made in the original approval a decade ago. This is not a complaint about fault in the decision-making process, but a complaint about the judgement the Council has made. We are not planning appeal body and cannot criticise decisions, unless there is fault in the process.
• Before it made its decision, the evidence shows the Council considered the application, planning policy, comments from the public and other consultees and the history of the site, including earlier approvals. This is the process we would expect, and further investigation is unlikely to find fault.
• We cannot provide the remedy Mr X wants. Only the high court can quash decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I ended my investigation, as it was unlikely to find fault, result in a remedy or any other meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman