Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to adhere to procedures when considering a planning application. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr B) also represents four neighbouring households. He says the Council failed to follow the correct process when considering a planning application for a nearby site during 2022.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 the information provided by Mr B. I asked the Council questions and examined its response and supporting evidence.
5. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. On the broader point, we cannot always respond to complaints in the level of detail people might want. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 1 February 2022 the Council received a planning application to build residential properties at a site near to Mr B’s home which included topographical spot heights within the application site (but not neighbouring sites). The Council sent out neighbour notification letters and erected a site notice in February. At the start of March Mr B submitted his objections. The Planning Officer visited the site on 23 March and viewed the planning site from neighbouring gardens including Mr B’s.
8. On 10 June the Council published amended plans provided by the applicant. The subsequent Planning Officer’s report took account of all the available evidence and representations from residents including Mr B. The report looked at objections to the application and set out how the Council considered the application alongside planning guidance. Where the application showed a shortfall in the guidance the Officer explained why this was considered to be acceptable. The Planning Officer recommended the planning application be approved. Because there were ten objections to the application the case was referred to the Planning Committee to consider and reach a decision.
9. On 11 July Members of the Planning Committee attended the site. The next day the Council added verified ridge height and topography data about the site to the application information on its website. The Planning Committee met that day and considered the application including the Planning Officer’s report, all the information provided on the planning website and listened to objections including Mr B’s. Members voted in favour of granting planning permission. The decision to grant planning permission was issued on 13 July.
10. Mr B submitted a formal complaint to the Council on 24 November. The Council subsequently notified him it would need longer than usual to reply. A substantive response was issued to Mr B on 21 April 2023. The eight page letter dealt with the points raised by Mr B in detail. The Council said it was aware its reply was significantly later than its original target and apologised for the delay. The Council said that it was correct to validate the application without site level details. However, that information should have been sought at an earlier stage during 2022. It was obtained before a decision was made on the application and the absence of detailed site level information on the application had not prevented residents referring to site levels in their objections. As such the Council was satisfied residents were not hindered in making representations about the application but it would remind officers about the need to obtain information at an early stage. The Council did not find any fault in the assessment of the application. It went through the various planning matters including the National Planning Policy Framework, the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide and the Neighbourhood Plan. It explained on each point how these had been considered and detailed in the Planning Officer’s report along with the reasons why the application was considered acceptable. Mr B escalated his complaint in May and received a final response from the Council on 7 August. The Council did not find evidence of fault in the new points raised by Mr B.

What should have happened

11. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use). 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. 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. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
12. When the Council receives a planning application it is validated and published on its planning website. The Council will publicise the application and invite representations from neighboring residents and statutory consultees. The Planning Officer will visit the site and assess the material planning considerations alongside the relevant policies and planning guidance. If additional information or amended plans are required to fully assess the application the Planning Officer should liaise with the applicant. The Planning Officer will produce a report setting out their recommendations on the application. The report should include reference to objections made by residents and how the relevant planning guidance has been applied.
13. Where a Planning Officer recommends approval of an application but there have been a “substantial” number of objections received for the application the Council will require its Planning Committee assess and vote on the application. If the Council feels it will aid an understanding of the application, it can ask Planning Committee Members to visit the site. There is no set number/ proportion of Committee Members that need to attend the site visit. The guidance note on procedures for Planning Committee meetings says that attendance at a site visit “is not mandatory” but Members are expected to attend if they feel they could not make a decision without visiting the site. The Planning Committee Members are provided with all the planning application papers in advance of the Committee meeting. They can discuss and debate the application and hear from objectors before voting on whether to grant planning permission.

Was there fault by the Council

14. In the complaint response 21 April 2023, the Council said that site level details could have been obtained sooner. I have considered this matter and can see that even in the absence of detailed topographical information both the the Planning Officer and Mr B were able to comment on the site levels and the possible impact on the neighbouring site during the application process. In addition, the more detailed topographical information was considered as part of the Planning Committee’s assessment of the application. So, whilst this data could have been obtained sooner, I do not see it resulted in any procedural fault as far as the assessment of the planning application, the ability for people to make representations or the final decision to grant planning permission reached by the Council.
15. Mr B says the Council failed to correctly apply various parts of planning guidance. The Council has responded at length about the different planning issues raised by Mr B in its response to his complaint. I consider the information it gave Mr B was correct and I see no benefit in simply reiterating that information here. I have carefully assessed whether the Council followed the correct process when considering objections to the application. The Planning Officer report details how the key objections were assessed and, where there was shortfall between the application and planning guidance, why the application was considered acceptable. For example, Supplementary Planning Guidance 6 includes a 21 metre guideline. The Planning Officer report sets out how this was assessed against the application and objection. Where there was a shortfall and the plans allowed 15 metres instead of 21 the report explains why this was acceptable.
16. I have also found no evidence of fault in the site visit by Members. There is no duty on all Members to attend the visit. In addition, they are not required to visit neighbouring properties. I have seen no evidence of procedural errors.
17. I appreciate Mr B strongly disagrees with the recommendations made by the Planning Officer and the Planning Committee’s decision. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. I am not taking a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, I look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If I consider it followed those processes correctly, I cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman