Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact a development would have on his amenity before it approved a reserved matters planning application. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision. We did not investigate other matters Mr X complained about, because further investigation was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a recommendation for a remedy or any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact a development next to his home would have on his amenity before it approved the most recent reserved matters application.
2. Mr X also complained that the Council failed to:
• pass a document relevant to a planning appeal to the Planning Inspectorate;
• undertake an ecological assessment of the site before the appeal was heard by a planning inspector;
• notify objectors of the outcome of the planning inspector’s decision, so they were too late to challenge the decision by way of judicial review; and
• answer his questions relating to Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), causing him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated the complaint in paragraph 1 above relating to consideration of amenity. I have decided not to investigate the complaints in paragraph 2 above. I will explain my reasons for these decisions in my findings below.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint or any part of a complaint that is within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. 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. Mr X has also sent me photographs and a copy of an expert report from an architect relating to the first application which was decided by the Planning Inspectorate.
8. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

9. Planning decisions can be for ‘full’ applications, where all or most details needed to make a decision are provided by the applicant. Alternatively, applicants can submit ‘outline’ applications, with key details so the principle of development can be considered. If approved, outline applications can be made lawful by the submission and approval of ‘reserved matters’ applications, where remaining details are considered.
10. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
11. Planning applicants may appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in certain circumstances. Planning Inspectors act on behalf of a Government minister. They may consider appeals about:

• delay by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission;
• a decision to refuse planning permission;
• conditions placed on planning permission; or
• a planning enforcement notice.

12. We have no powers to investigate decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate and would not normally investigate any matter it has decided.
13. Details of how a council considered an application are usually found in planning case officer reports. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and that due process was followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
14. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues;
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

What happened

15. Several years ago, the Planning Inspectorate approved an outline application for a dormer bungalow on land next to Mr X’s home. The decision was not made within the time period allowed, and the developer used their right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
16. The Council’s planning website includes a letter to the Planning Inspector and a copy of the report from Mr X’s architect. It was stamped as received at the Inspectorate’s office several weeks before the appeal decision was made.
17. The Planning Inspector approved the outline application, reserving all other matters for approval, including access, landscaping, layout, scale and appearance.
18. The developer submitted a reserved matters application, which the Council refused for several reasons, including the overbearing impact the proposal would have on its surroundings.
19. The developer submitted a second reserved matters application for a smaller house. The Council’s planning case officer wrote a report which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• details of relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the principle of development, the impact on heritage assets, access, appearance, landscaping, layout and impact on amenity; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
20. The application was approved by a senior officer using delegated powers.
21. Mr X complained to the Council about what had happened. The Council responded to his complaints and said:
• it had considered the impact on his amenity before making its decision on the second reserved matters application;
• it had not sought an ecological assessment in relation to the outline application because the developer had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, who had then taken over the role of planning authority in relation to this application;
• it had originally said it had no record of ecological information or an architect’s report sent by Mr X to a senior planning officer on its planning system. The Council said it later found some documents that were uploaded under an incorrect planning reference. The Council said the documents were then uploaded correctly under their original dates;
• it had no obligation to notify interested parties of the outcome of planning appeals. However, the Council normally uploads appeal decisions to its website, but that did not happen here because the information was uploaded under the wrong application reference. The Council went on to point out that the appeal decision was available on the Planning Inspector’s site;
• it accepted the information provided under Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) was inadequate as it directed Mr X to the public access area of its website.
22. Mr X was dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaints and so complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

23. In paragraph 3 above, I explain that I will investigate Mr X’s complaint relating to the most recent application, the second reserved matters application, but that I will not continue my investigation into other matters he raises in his complaint. My reasons are as follows.

Consideration of amenity impact

24. 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.
25. Before it made its decision on the second reserved matters application the Council took account of the plans, the planning history (including the Planning Inspector’s decision) objections and comments from consultees, relevant planning policy and the main planning considerations identified by the planning case officer.
26. I accept that there is not a great deal of detail in the case officer report relating to the impact the development would have on neighbouring amenity, but there is enough to show the issue was considered before a decision was made. The Council has followed the decision making process we would expect and so I find no fault.

Other matters raised in this complaint

27. Before we begin or continue our investigations into matters raised in complaint, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely we can show that any fault caused a significant injustice?
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. My reasons for not continuing my investigation into these other matters, are:
• Failure to pass a document to the Planning Inspectorate – In its response to his complaint, the Council explained that some documents sent by Mr X were originally uploaded to its own online planning portal under an incorrect reference, but this error was later corrected. If Mr X believes that the Inspector’s decision was affected by lack of information, he should address his concerns to the Planning Inspectorate.
• Failure to undertake an ecological assessment – The Council explained why it stopped the process to decide the outline application once an appeal was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate. It was for the Planning Inspector to decide if there was enough information to make a sound decision, and if Mr X believes the outcome was flawed, he can challenge the Inspectorate. In any event, we should not speculate what difference this would have made to the outcome.
• Failure to notify objectors of the appeal outcome – I know of no legal obligation on councils to publicise the outcome of Planning Inspectors’ decisions, and this information is readily available on the Inspectorate’s website. From the documents provided by Mr X, I can see that he knew there was an appeal, he had the appeal reference and had provided information to the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate has a public access website where details of decisions can be found. It also has a customer support telephone number, which answers enquiries relating to appeals. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that further investigation by me would result in a finding of fault or a recommendation for a remedy for Mr X.
• Failure to answer questions relating to EIR request – the Council has acknowledged its response was inadequate and Mr X raised his concerns with the ICO. The ICO consider matters relating to access to information, including requests made under EIR. In these circumstances, we should not investigate this part of the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I found no fault in the way the Council made its decision to approve the planning application and so I have completed my investigation.
32. I used my discretion to decide not to investigate other matters Mr X complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman