Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application and later decided to approve it. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the processing and consideration of the application. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council failed to follow the correct planning policy and procedure before granting permission for a warehouse close to his home.
2. Mr X wants the planning permission for the warehouse withdrawn.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the application is not consistent with the Council’s planning policy. However, it is clear from the Planning Officer’s report the Council:
• considered the height of the proposed building and distance to residents’ homes; and
• recognises the warehouse will have cause significant change to the area.
7. The professional opinion of the Officers is that the design is of good standards and the impact will not be damaging to the area.
8. From the information I have seen there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the planning application.
9. Mr X also complains the Planning Committee failed to follow the correct protocol when it reconsidered the application. However, there is no requirement for the committee to move straight to consideration of reasons for refusal.
10. Considering Mr X’s concerns about the Committee not following arrangements for public speaking, the Council’s website states:

“Public speaking operates at the discretion of the Chairman, with the approval of the Planning Committee. The Chairman retains the discretion to vary the procedures as long as there is always equity and proportionality between objectors and supporters.” There is no evidence of fault in the number of speakers allowed at the meeting.

11. The Council is not required to record the number of votes for and against planning proposals unless requested by a Member. There is no evidence there was fault in the vote when the application was approved.
12. The Chair of the meeting is entitled to use their casting vote. It is expected that committee members will change their views on proposals following debates and/or further information.
13. Mr X says the applicants barrister provided a threatening opinion, stating an appeal to the Planning Inspector would likely succeed, should the committee decide to refuse the application. This is a statement of opinion and as decision makers it is for the committee to decide whether to give this weight.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Planning Officer reports are clear and the impact on and distance to Mr X’s home and that of the residents in his street was considered before the decision to approve the application. Also, we cannot require the Council to withdraw the planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman