Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a large scale energy development, including its interpretation of policies and she said it misadvised the Planning Committee, affecting how the Committee considered the application. We did not find fault with the Council with these concerns. We found fault with the Council’s complaint handling, and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains, on behalf of Group A (a local community group), about the Council's handling of a major planning application, along with concerns about the conduct and misrepresentations by planning officers. She says these actions meant the Planning Committee could not make a fully informed and considered decision before approving an energy development. She says this will affect the amenity of local residents and many have lost faith in the Council’s planning process with the way it has been managed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered Ms X’s written complaint, discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered her views.
5. I considered the Council’s written response to my enquiries. I also considered information published on the Council’s public planning website and the Council’s report to the Planning Committee.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

Planning permission

7. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use). Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions. It may also be granted subject to a legal agreement to make otherwise unacceptable proposals acceptable in planning terms.

Decision making and material considerations

8. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest. They include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.

The Council’s complaint policy

9. The Council’s complaint policy says: the manager or deputy manager of the service the complaint relates to will respond as they will be able to best review the concerns raised. The person dealing with the complaint will contact the complainant within five working days and they will provide a full response within 10 working days. The Council may extend this to a further 10 working days if necessary.
10. On receipt of an escalation request to Stage Two, the Council will respond within 20 working days. A Customer Liaison Officer will investigate; they will not have had any previous involvement with the complaint. The Council will not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.

Background

11. “The Application” relates to a planning application to use an area of land for a large scale energy development. The permission is temporary and expires in several decades with the intention the development is removed after this.
12. The Council’s Planning Officer report to the Planning Committee included:
• A description of the proposed development;
• Relevant planning history of other key developments within the immediate vicinity of the site;
• Details of relevant planning policy and guidance;
• A summary of comments from residents and other consultees;
• An appraisal of the main planning considerations;
• The officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.

What happened – summary of complaint timeline

13. In early 2023, the Planning Committee approved the Application. The next month, Ms X contacted the Council (on behalf of Group A) to request a meeting. She wanted to advance a formal complaint due to concerns with the Council’s handling of the Application and the public meeting.
14. For brevity, I have not included every single point but summarise the main themes below:
• The applicant did not provide sufficient information to meet the requirements needed for the Council to validate the Application;
• Previous planning decisions were not taken into account when they are material planning considerations;
• Officers misled the Planning Committee about the Application’s compliance with the Local Development Plan; and
• Officers had wrongly interpreted relevant policies.
15. The Council acknowledged this. Over the next two months, Ms X chased a response, submitted a complaint on the online system and later escalated it.
16. The Council said its Planning team would provide a technical response to her at Stage One. Ms X raised concerns with the approach as the Planning team and Senior Planning Officer was the subject of the complaint. The Council later told Ms X the Senior Planning Officer was leading on the matter and would formally respond in due course. Ms X did not receive a complaint response.
17. The complaint then came to us. Ms X said members of Group A have lost faith in the impartiality of the planning system. She said residents were affected by the loss of views, agricultural land, reduced house values, and access to footpaths and bridleways.

My findings and analysis

18. Our investigations are proportionate - it is not our role to answer every single question or point a complainant may have about a council’s actions.
19. We are not a planning appeal body and cannot comment on the professional judgements that are made by planning authorities. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for fault in the decision making process, and if we find it, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant. I set out my views below.

Validation List

20. When validating planning applications, certain documents form part of national statutory requirements. In addition, councils may request further materials as set out in a ‘Local List’.
21. Ms X said the Council did not follow its own Local List as the applicant did not submit the manufacturer’s specification of equipment for the installation of items on the site. The Local List says this is required to “enable material planning judgements on safety, noise and disturbance”. Without this, she said the Council could not properly assess this.
22. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the Local List can be applied at its discretion. It said it is common practice to accept illustrative details for energy development as it recognised the fast moving evolution of the technology and precise specifications were likely to change in the planning process. Technical consultees were also satisfied that assessment of impacts could be made.
23. I see no fault here. It was for the Council to determine if it had sufficient information to validate and assess the application. It was open to the Council to request further information if it was dissatisfied with what the applicant provided.

Previous refused appeals

24. Ms X says during the public meeting, a Councillor asked for information about two previous energy developments refused at appeal. The Council responded saying the Committee should only consider this Application on its merits. It advised against drawing on the outcome of appeals in other locations as the proposals are a snapshot in time based on the particular sites and policies at that time. Ms X said this was incorrect as it is a material consideration as the refusals were made under the same Local Development Plan.
25. There were no previous appeal decisions for the same development site as the Application. The other appeals are not necessarily comparable. While also for proposed energy developments in the Council’s area, there would be site specific considerations for each, and they were not in the direct vicinity to the site covered in this Application.
26. Given the two refused appeals were from over seven years ago, it is also likely the relevant planning policies and Government guidance about renewable energy have evolved and changed since. Planning applications should be determined on their own merits and circumstances at the time. The Council’s actions here do not amount to fault.

Misinterpretation of policies

27. Ms X said the officer’s report to the Planning Committee wrongly drew support for the Application from its Renewable/Low Carbon Energy policy. She said the policy referred to renewable energy as part of other developments, not standalone schemes like the proposed development, so this had no relevance when determining the Application. She said the Council implied the policy said renewable energy proposals of all kinds may be acceptable subject to site-specific issues, which is incorrect when read in its proper context.
28. I recognise Ms X strongly believes the Council is wrong in its interpretation of the policy it referred to and that it misadvised the Planning Committee because of this. It is not my role to decide if the Council’s interpretation about its relevancy was right or not; however, the available evidence shows the Council considered and had regard for the policy when making its decision. I do not find the Council at fault.

Consideration of relevant policies and the Local Development Plan

29. Councils should take into account its Local Development Plan, local and national planning guidance/policies and these may pull in different directions (e.g. in promoting development versus protecting residential amenities). Therefore, it is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. We look at whether the Council can show it had regard to these policies and information when the decision was made. If we consider it has done so, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
30. The officer’s report to the Planning Committee is thorough and weighs up the competing policies in their professional judgement. It evaluated the material planning considerations of the proposed development. The impacts on the landscape, agricultural land, ecology/biodiversity of the development are explored, along with assessment on heritage, flood risk, public amenity, and other issues.
31. It recognised the limitation of some policies and how it applied to this development (e.g. the Renewable/Low Energy Carbon policy). It accepted some harm would be caused which conflicted with some individual policies (e.g. it did not comply with its policy in protecting and enhancing valued landscapes). But it explained why it decided these were limited or not significant enough to warrant refusal of the Application and did not outweigh the benefits. It noted its temporary nature and also reflected on ways to mitigate harm to make it more acceptable, which were included as conditions on the decision notice. It found the proposal acceptable and recommended approval.
32. I am satisfied the Council has adequately considered the relevant policies and explained how it has balanced them. It was entitled to reach this decision. I do not find the Council at fault.
33. Some of these issues were raised and discussed at the public meeting. The Planning Committee would have had access to the planning file and submitted documents. They had the opportunity to ask questions during the public meeting which they did. It was open for the Planning Committee to defer making a decision if they felt they needed further information or they needed clarity on any other matters before it could reach a decision. It did not in this case. It was for them to consider the competing planning considerations to make their decision.
34. I understand Ms X and Group A are concerned about the impact the development will have on the local environment and the effect it may have on their amenity. But I have not found fault with the Council’s or Committee’s considerations and the decision making process it followed; therefore, I cannot question the merits of the decision reached to grant permission. While the Council may have presented reasons with which Ms X disagrees, this is not in itself, evidence of fault by the Council.

Misdirection about the accordance with the Local Development Plan and policies

35. Ms X refers to a specific condition attached on the decision notice. The reason for this condition is “the development hereby permitted is contrary to the general policy of the Local Planning Authority and is granted solely in recognition of the situation”. Ms X says this means the Council acknowledges the Application is not in accordance with the Local Development Plan or its policies but did not inform the Planning Committee. She says this meant the Committee did not know of this conflict with Council policy before making its decision. I do not consider this the case.
36. In my view, my consideration in Paragraphs 30 to 33 already covers this. The Council recognised and discussed the tension and conflicts with some of its policies. It concluded despite these; it decided the Application complied with the Local Development Plan and policies as a whole. I am satisfied the Committee were aware of these general conflicts with some of the policies as analysed above. I do not find fault.
37. Ms X raises concern with the specific wording of this reason for condition as it implies a “general policy” and does not say which it refers to. I note it does appear vague and could have been clearer. However, I am satisfied with its overall intent and purpose. I do not consider it evidence of the Committee being significantly misinformed.

Complaint handling

38. The Council did not send a formal response to Ms X’s original complaint. This is fault and falls below the standards of services that we expect. Ms X also raised concerns about a named Senior Planning Officer investigating the complaint as she said some of the concerns related to their actions. I do not see the Council clearly acknowledged her concerns of who would be investigating, causing Ms X some frustration. I consider it would have been good practice for the Council to discuss this with her and offer clarity about the independence of who could investigate or potentially propose any mitigation measures if appropriate. I would expect the Council to keep this in mind when responding to formal complaints with similar concerns in the future.
39. In any event, the Council’s Senior Planning Officer did not investigate the complaint in the end. Even after assuring Ms X it would, the Council never sent a formal response. This fault caused injustice to Ms X with avoidable frustration. It denied her the chance to have her (and Group A’s) concerns fairly responded to or properly considered by the Council at the time, when it should have. She had to go to additional time and trouble to chase it up with the Council before eventually coming to us.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. To remedy the injustice above, the Council has agreed to, within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Ms X and Group A (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused with how it handled her complaint concerns and for not providing a formal response to it.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I found fault with the Council’s complaint handling which caused injustice to Ms X on behalf of Group A. The Council has agreed with my recommendation to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman