Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application near the complainant’s homes. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains for himself and three other residents where he lives. He says the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for new building in the green belt close to his home. He also complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
8. 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.
9. 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.

My findings

10. The Case Officer wrote a report on the proposal. The report includes a summary of the objections to the application:
• The proposal is contrary to local and national planning policy
• The very special circumstances provided by the applicant do not outweigh the impact on the green belt
• The development is not sustainable
• The proposal has a detrimental impact on wildlife and ecology; and
• The proposal is visually intrusive.
11. The report:
• sets out the national and local policies which are relevant to the application
• shows the Council gave consideration to the very special circumstances for development in the greenbelt and weighs this against greenbelt policy
• considers the impact on residential amenity; and
• is satisfied the design is appropriate to the context of the site and the industrial setting.
12. Having reviewed the information available, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. Without evidence of fault in the process, we are unable to question the Council’s decision to approve the planning application.
13. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control.
14. The Council confirms the building is not built according to the approved plans. However, there is a live planning enforcement investigation ongoing. The developer has been asked to put in a retrospective planning application to rectify the breaches. If the application is received, Mr X and his neighbours will be able to comment on the application, and the Council must consider those comments. If an application is not received, the Council must consider whether it is expedient to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it considered the planning application. Nor have we seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions on the reported breaches of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman