Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s and committee’s planning processes resulting in the grant of permission for a new property near her house. There is not enough evidence of fault by officers or committee Members to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X wants from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives next to a property whose owner sought and received planning permission. The application was for the removal of an existing building and the addition of another house, connected to the side of the host property. Ms X complains the Council:
1. improperly granted planning permission for the unsuitable development;
2. failed to answer objectors’ questions or properly consider their objections;
3. failed to consider the impact of the property on residents and their area;
4. pre-determined the decision;
5. granted the permission despite it being contrary to its policies;
6. had inadequate facilities at the committee meeting determining the planning application;
7. discriminated against the residents’ group and people who do not have online access.
2. Ms X says the matter has had an immense impact on her and residents, many of whom also objected to the application. She says the addition of the new property to the semi-detached houses changes the definition of the neighbouring property from semi-detached to an end of terrace. Ms X says she has spent time dealing with the matter which has been financially, emotionally and physically exhausting and extremely stressful for her. She is concerned about the impact on her health of the disruption from the building of the development.
3. Ms X wants the Council to:
• admit to and take responsibility for its errors;
• revoke the planning permission and re-run the process, taking into account local knowledge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Ms X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X raises complaints about the Council’s planning process. Planning officers dealt with the first stage of the process but they did not make the decision to grant the permission. The planning committee Members voted to grant the permission in the second stage of the process.
8. We can only go behind a council or committee decision where there is evidence of fault in the process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So I have considered the Council officers’ process in producing the planning report, and the planning committee Members’ in deciding the application.
9. The Council received the application in early 2022. Officers sought comments on the application from the public and statutory consultees during the notification process. In response to some comments, the applicant submitted amended plans which changed the siting of the new property and some boundary treatments. Officers re-consulted on the changed plans. The planning officer produced their report, recommending approval of the application. The report summarises the objections and comments received about the plans and sets out the local area and planning contexts. It notes where an objection is not a matter which can be considered within the planning process, impacts on house prices or breaches of covenants for example.
10. The report considered the relevant local and national policies and whether the proposal complied with them. The planning officer noted the plan to develop on former garden land did not align with the National Planning Policy Framework but considered the development would not cause such planning harm to outweigh the benefits it would bring. The officer’s report recommended approval.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council officer’s involvement in the planning process to warrant an investigation here. The evidence shows officers considered the relevant planning matters and applied the appropriate policies. They set out the reasons for the decision where the development diverged from policy. Officers responded to material and non‑material planning objections from Ms X and other objectors. The officer’s report shows they considered the impact of the property on residents and their area. They assessed the pros and cons of the development in reaching their view to recommend approval.
12. In line with the Council’s process, the planning officer referred the case to the planning committee for it to decide the application. Its Members considered the application and voted to grant the permission in summer 2022. Ms X and others attended the meeting and Ms X spoke to object. It was within the power of the committee to refuse the permission if they had agreed with Ms X or others’ objections and believed they gave planning reasons for a refusal. Planning decisions are made on the basis of strength of material planning arguments, not on how many objectors there are to an application. Members were not bound by the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, nor by the number of people opposing it. They considered the report and the other relevant planning information and reached their decision to grant the permission. That was a decision Members were entitled to make.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning committee’s process here to warrant investigation. Nor is there enough evidence of Ms X’s allegation that Members had pre-determined that decision for us to investigate.
14. The Council has accepted some of the equipment used during the committee meeting did not operate correctly and intends to fix this. It is unfortunate this affected the meeting but there is not enough evidence this issue would have led to a different planning outcome.
15. I recognise Ms X and others disagree strongly with the decision to grant the permission. But we cannot criticise a planning decision because people disagree with it. It is not fault for a council or its planning committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
16. Ms X raises allegations of discrimination against the residents’ group. A properly made planning decision, even if it goes against the wishes of one person or a group of people, is not an example of discrimination. Ms X also alleges the Council’s planning process discriminated against people who do not have online access. Anyone without internet access may ask to view the relevant documents at the Council’s offices. This would be less convenient than viewing documents online but would provide access to the same information. There is not enough evidence the planning process involved discrimination to justify an investigation.
17. Ms X wants the Council to accept and take responsibility for its errors in the planning process. But for the reasons given above, that is not a remedy we will pursue. The planning outcome Ms X wants from her complaint is for the Council to revoke the planning permission it granted and re-run the whole process. We cannot order councils to revoke granted planning permissions. We cannot achieve the planning outcome Ms X seeks, which is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council’s officers or the Members of the committee in their planning processes to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X seeks from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman