Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land it controls. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The person that complained to us will be referred to as X. X represents a group of residents.
2. X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development on land it controlled.
3. X is concerned the development will damage the environment.

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 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)
6. We may at our discretion decide to start or end an investigation or any part of an investigation. (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 X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer reports. I watched recordings of planning committee meetings.
8. I gave the Council and X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

9. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
10. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
11. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
12. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
13. Councils sometimes need to apply for planning permission for their own developments. When this happens, decisions are normally made by planning committees made up of elected members. We expect councils to treat their own planning applications with the same level of scrutiny, objectivity, and rigour as they would any other application made by a private individual.
14. Councils can take account of emerging plans when making decisions on planning applications. Government guidance on this issue says councils may give weight to emerging plans, but how much weight will depend on:
• what stage of preparation the plan has reached. The more advanced in the process the plan is, the greater the weight may be given to it;
• the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and
• how consistent the relevant policies in the emerging plan are with policies in the government’s national planning policy framework.

Diversion of public rights of way

15. There are many reasons why rights of way can be changed. Subject to certain conditions that need to be met, it is possible to apply to divert a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway. If the application is refused, an appeal can be made to the planning inspectorate.

What happened

16. The Council’s planning authority considered a planning application for development from its land asset management department.
17. The planning application was assessed by a case officer, who wrote reports for the Council’s planning committee which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of planning history considered relevant;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on the environment/ecological issues, the need for the development, and rights of way and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
18. The Council’s planning committee approved the application subject to conditions.
19. In response to an earlier draft of this decision, X said:
• the Council did not take account of an emerging neighbourhood plan;
• there was not enough consideration of a footpath, which marks an electoral ward boundary;
• the website record of the original application did not mention a later application to modify an approved plan in the ‘related cases’ tab; and
• the Council’s actions fall short of its core values, to be open, honest, trusted, to work with all communities and treat people fairly.

My findings

20. We are not a planning appeal body and X, as a third party, has no right of appeal. 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. In the absence of fault in the decision-making process, we will not comment on the judgements made by officers and members of the Council.
21. Before it made its decision, the Council considered the application, the plans, comments from the public and other consultees, planning policy and law and its planning officer’s reports and recommendations. This is the decision-making process we expect and so I find no fault.
22. The comments X made on an earlier draft of this decision did not change my view of the complaint. My reasons for this are as follows:
• I checked the status of the neighbourhood plan, but no plan has been published for comments. Even if there was an a approved neighbourhood plan that was not taken into account, it is unlikely we would be able to show the outcome of the decision would have been different.
• The Council considered issues relating to a footpath before it made its decision. There is a separate process for modifying a right of way.
• Ward boundaries are not fixed and permanent. Changes to ward boundaries are sometimes made for administrative reasons, usually to ensure balance in elections so that votes carry equal weight. It may be that the footpath that concerns X does mark a ward boundary, but I am not persuaded this made any difference to the outcome of the planning decision.
• I checked the Council’s website and did find both the original application and the application to modify the plan when using the main search engine. The Council told me it is considering changes to improve links between applications. Though any such improvement would be welcome, I am not persuaded a significant injustice was caused to X or any other person that would justify further investigation of this issue.
• X believes the Council has failed to act in accordance with its own values, including openness and honesty. I read the case officer reports and listened to the debate in Council meetings about this application. X is unhappy with the outcome of the planning process, but I am satisfied that the normal planning process has happened without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I found no fault in the decision-making process and so I completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman