Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider properly a planning application which led him to incur avoidable costs and unnecessary stress and will harm the conservation area. We have found no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to consider properly a planning application for relocating two agricultural buildings. In particular, Mr X says the Council did not provide a robust assessment of the public benefit claimed by the applicant or have due regard to the impact of the development on the conservation area including a failure to attach conditions to mitigate harm.
2. Mr X says because of the Council’s fault, he has incurred avoidable costs and suffered unnecessary stress and the conservation area will suffer harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
7. I have considered information from the Council and the planning documents publicly available on the Council’s planning portal.
8. I have explained my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

9. The general power to control development and use of land is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  Permission is required for any development or change of use of land and may be granted by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) or deemed to be permitted if it falls within the limits set out in Permitted Development regulations.
10. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the Council’s local development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. It constitutes guidance in drawing up plans and is a material consideration in determining applications.
11. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
12. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions for example in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Key events

Consideration of application

13. The Council received a planning application towards the end of 2021 to relocate two barns for agricultural storage and other associated matters. The application site is located in a conservation area.
14. The Council publicised the application through neighbour notification letters, a site notice and press notice during February and March. The Council issued further neighbour notification letters in September following the receipt of further information and completed a further round of statutory consultations.
15. Mr X made representations to the Council about the application in response to both neighbour notification letters. These included concerns about the impact on the conservation area including its rural character with reference to the comments of the Conservation Officer. Mr X also raised concerns about the impact on residential amenity from farm machinery movements. Mr X also commented on the business case for the development and speculated about its long term use. In his second objection, Mr X referred to the additional information provided by the applicant and his view that it did not provide any justification for the harm identified by the Conservation Officer. Mr X also supported the objection of Historic England. Mr X also set out his view that the only benefit from the application was to the applicant and there was no public economic benefit. Mr X disputed the need for the proposed office space. Mr X challenged other statements about access requirements, quality of the agricultural land, decline of a particular building and claimed employment opportunities made by the applicant. Mr X also raised his concern that discussions between the applicant’s agent and the Director of Planning were not available on the Council’s planning portal despite being relevant to its determination.
16. The matter was determined by the Local Area Council Planning Committee (the Committee) in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. The case officer’s report for the Committee for the application set out the relevant policies, material planning considerations and provided a summary of the consultation responses and representations received which included the objections received from the parish council, Mr X and other residents. These included issues about the impact of the development on the conservation area, there being no business need or public economic benefit, access/traffic issues, inaccurate statements in the application, impact of other potential applications, impact on residential amenity, lack of transparency about discussions between applicant’s agent the Director of Planning and no evidence for employment and green energy claims.
17. The case officer provided an assessment of the proposals against the above and recommended permission be granted subject to conditions. The case officer subsequently provided an update report to the Committee with a revised plan and amended condition wording.
18. Mr X has raised a particular concern about how the Council considered the public benefit of the proposals. The case officer’s report sets out the consultation responses from both Historic England which objected to the proposal on the grounds it would harm the conservation area due to the position, scale and appearance of the development and the Conservation Officer who concluded the proposals failed to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Conservation Officer identified a ‘less than substantial harm’. The report also set out the Archaeology consultation response which identified harm to the ridge and furrow earthwork. In each case, the report goes on to consider whether the identified harm could be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with the relevant policy. The case officer set out the list of public benefits provided by the agent. This was based on a revised design and access statement submitted to the Council in September 2022. This document provides an assessment of social/economic use which includes a list of public benefits. The list of public benefits included the assertion that as the estate developed it would create employment for local people and suppliers and the development would provide a net increase of 3 jobs (excluding construction jobs) and help secure employment for another 2 jobs. The case officer’s report is clear that some of the stated benefits were considered private benefits but noted that there would be the public benefit of a net increase of 2.5 jobs and the buildings being needed to secure the future of the farming operation on the estate. The case officer considered, on balance the less than substantial harm identified was outweighed by the public benefit and so was in accordance with the relevant policy.
19. Historic England’s response to the re-consultation maintained its objection to the proposal but acknowledged a balanced decision between harm to heritage significance and public benefits should be made which was best undertaken by the Council. The response confirmed it remained of the opinion the proposal would cause a notable degree of harm to the significance of the Conservation Area. This response is included in the table of consultee responses in the case officer’s report. In the case officer’s subsequent assessment, the word ‘notable’ is omitted and the Conservation Officer conclusion of ‘less than substantial harm’ is highlighted.
20. The Committee resolved to approve the application subject to conditions towards the end of 2022. One of these conditions required a plan for landscape planting to be provided to the Council for approval before occupation of the development. The plan needed to detail the number of trees, hedgerows and shrubs with only use Northumberland native species. The approved plan was to be implemented in full during the first planting season (November to March inclusive).

Consideration of subsequent complaint

21. Mr X complained to the Council about its consideration of the application in February 2023. This complaint raised detailed concerns which included the following matters:

• meetings held with the applicant during the Council’s consideration of the application which were not recorded in accordance with the Council’s Constitution
• emails from the case officer to the applicant setting out their original intention to refuse the application and then subsequently to approve the application following meetings but before re-consultation responses had been received
• an incorrect Chair Referral Report recommending approval under delegated powers which was then withdrawn and the matter was passed to the Planning Committee for a decision
• the case officer’s report to the Committee was inaccurate and misleading in relation to: the applicant’s claims of new jobs and public benefit; a failure to provide any analysis of the applicant’s new jobs figure and noted this was changed in the case officer’s report to Committee; and Historic England’s response was not fully reported.

22. The Council provided a response in March. This accepted that following a site meeting and additional information being submitted the case officer wrote to the applicant’s agent to confirm they were now able to determine the application with a recommendation of approval. The Council acknowledged there were still outstanding consultation responses at that stage and apologised for not making it clear they were able to support the principle of the development subject to technical matters being addressed. The Council apologised for the error in its wording here. The Council explained the Chair Referral Report was produced to allow the Director of Planning and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee to consider if the application should be a delegated decision or if it should be referred to the Local Area Council Planning Committee. The Council confirmed the referral process outcome was for the application to be referred to the Committee and the report had not been withdrawn and was available for public view on the Council’s planning portal.
23. Mr X remained unhappy about meetings between officers and the applicant not being properly recorded in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and escalated his complaint.
24. The Council provided a further response to Mr X in April. This provided details of three meetings including the date, attendees and purpose. The Council accepted its Constitution set out guidelines for pre and post application discussions/negotiations including that a written note of such meetings would be made but that this did not happen for the three meetings. The Council explained it was arguable that the first meeting fell within the guidelines given its purpose as a strategic discussion and the last meeting was a site visit and may not have required a written note but it accepted the second meeting did discuss the details of applications and so a note should have been made. The Council noted it was not always practical to prepare a note for all such meetings particularly if there was nothing of substance to record (the Council did not suggest this was such a meeting). The Council acknowledged it was regrettable there was no note for one particular meeting and provided an apology but did not accept this undermined the transparency of the decision making process and noted the case officer’s report clearly set out the reasoning for the recommendation. The Council confirmed it would circulate the Constitution to the officers within the planning service to remind officers of the guidelines.
25. In his complaint to the Ombudsman Mr X also noted the Council had not attached conditions about the height of a proposed hedge or number of trees.

My consideration

26. The Ombudsman looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.
27. Mr X has raised several issues relating to the case officer’s report to the Committee which he suggests was inaccurate and misleading. Mr X disputed the applicant’s claims of new jobs and public benefit and says the case officer failed to provide any analysis of the applicant’s new jobs figure despite providing a different figure than provided in the applicant’s design and access statement. Mr X also says Historic England’s response was not fully reported.
28. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process 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. 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.

29. I note the case officer’s report refers to a net increase of 2.5 jobs which does not accord with the design and access statement which refers to a net increase of 3 jobs. No explanation is provided within the report for the different figures. In response to further enquiries on this point, the Council has now confirmed the reference to 2.5 jobs was an error in the report. The design and access statement refers to 3 jobs as quoted elsewhere in the Committee report. I do not consider any error here can reasonably be said to have materially affected the Committee’s consideration of the application or the outcome. It was open to the Committee to seek to defer its consideration of the application if it considered further information or clarity was needed on this or any other matter in order to reach a sound decision but it did not do so. However, it is regrettable the Council missed the opportunity to clarify this particular issue with Mr X during its consideration of his subsequent complaint.
30. Similarly, I do not consider the way the case officer set out Historic England’s response can reasonably be said to have materially affected the Committee’s consideration of the application or the outcome. It was clear the objection remained on the grounds of harm to the significance of the Conservation Area.
31. I have noted the Council’s explanation about Mr X’s concerns about how it applied the guidelines set out in its Constitution for pre and post application discussions/negotiations including that a written note of such meetings would be made. I also note the Council’s apology and confirmation that it would circulate the Constitution to the officers within the planning service to remind them of the guidelines. The Ombudsman would welcome this action. However, I do not consider any omission here can reasonably be said to have affected the Committee’s consideration of the application or outcome. Mr X raised his concern about a lack of transparency about discussions between the applicant’s agent and the Director of Planning in his representations which were included in the case officer’s report.
32. I am also satisfied the Council attached appropriate conditions relating to landscaping as part of its consideration of the application. The approval of the detail of these submissions would be a separate matter and has not formed part of my investigation.
33. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the Council had enough relevant information to reach a sound decision and properly considered the material planning considerations including representations from statutory consultees and residents when doing so. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the application.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman