Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application to build new homes in the village where the complainant lives. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council approved a planning application. It says the Council
• did not have all the relevant documents
• added documents to the planning portal after the consultation period had closed
• cannot evidence it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply; and
• adopted a tilted balance exercise when arriving at the decision to approve the application.
2. Mr X says he feels he has no voice or means to challenge a planning application outside the legal process. And he has spent time and trouble making this complaint.
3. Mr X wants the approved application changed or withdrawn.

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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. It sets out a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”. The NPPF says this presumption means, when deciding planning applications:

“where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless…any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in [the NPPF] taken as a whole.”

10. 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.
11. 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

12. The Planning Officer visited the site and wrote a report of the proposal. The report includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from Mr X and the parish council.
13. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ housing delivery test shows 89% of the housing required in the Council’s area in the previous three years was achieved. As the test result is less than 95% the Council is required to produce an action plan. The Council’s action plan dated July 2022 states:

“Following the steps set out, at the time of writing the output for North Somerset is that 1,392 dwellings are required each year. Recent appeal decisions have confirmed that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply against this challenging target, with the most recent conclusions of Inspector’s indicating that supply is in the region of 3.5 years.”

14. Therefore, I am satisfied the Planning Officer’s report on the application is correct when stating the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
15. It is for planning officers to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
16. Mr X says the Council failed to provide evidence that it does not have a five-year housing land supply. From the information available on the Council’s website, which I have outlined in paragraph 13, I disagree. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation.
17. Mr X is concerned the Council carried out a “tilted balancing exercise” in favour of the developer and did not work proactively with the those objecting to the application.
18. The tilted balancing exercise is a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework. This is required, where for example there is a lack of five-year supply or where a council has delivered substantially fewer homes than were needed in its area. As the Council cannot show a five-year housing supply there is no fault in the Council using a tilted balancing exercise.
19. The application is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access. The Council enabled the public to make representations on the application. This is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but there is no requirement for the Council to converse with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
20. The officer decided:
• the siting, scale and design of the new properties would not adversely affect the character of the site and the area
• would not adversely affect the living conditions of neighbours
• there will be no adverse highway implications
• there are no issues with protected species; and
• the new homes will contribute to the housing supply

They recommended the application for approval. This is a professional judgement which the Officer is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning polices; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
22. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if he investigated.
23. Also, we cannot require the Council to change or withdraw the planning permission it has already granted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman