Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a major development near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to approve the application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a major development near her home, as the height of the building on raised ground is unacceptable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We can 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X;
• information about the planning applications and the Planning Committee meetings for the development, available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s decisions on other complaints we have received about the development.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman has previously investigated complaints about this development and found no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to approve the planning application.

Background

6. The Council approved an outline planning application for the principle of development for a large industrial/warehouse building on land near Mrs X’s home. The application included a drainage plan, showing land height levels across the site. The outline planning application was approved.
7. The Council then received a reserved matters application, which included more details, including the building design. The application included a plan showing the height of the finished floor level. These plans, along with other documents were available on the public planning file for consideration before a decision was made.
8. The Council’s planning case officer wrote a report to advise its planning committee, which included:
• a description of the proposal and the site, which had been identified in the local plan for use as employment land;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• a summary of comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• details of relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, a list of the planning documents, including building plans, elevations, and site levels. The officer’s analysis included their views on the principle of development, the design, scale and layout, landscaping, the impact on amenity, noise, and disturbance from the use of the building, drainage and flood risk, ecological issues and highway access, contaminated land, employment opportunities, TV and radio reception, rights of way and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
9. Members of the planning committee considered the application and asked for a decision to be deferred to allow discussions about reduction of the proposed height of the building and other issues. These discussions took place, and the application was amended to reduce the building’s height.
10. The planning committee approved the application, subject to conditions proposed by the planning case officer.
11. Residents complained to the Council and its members about what had happened. The Council commissioned a site survey, which found that the building had been built in accordance with the approved plans, and that in fact the building ridge height and finished floor levels were slightly lower than had been approved. Some residents have discussed what has been built with members of the planning committee, who acknowledged that:
• they were surprised by how high the building is; and
• that they had not realised that land would be raised on some parts of the site when it was levelled in preparation for construction to begin.
12. We asked a planning officer who had been involved with the case about whether any material had been brought onto the land to raise its level.
13. The planning officer confirmed that no waste had been brought onto the site to raise land levels, but soil was moved around to form a flat base for construction.

Our findings

14. We are not a planning appeal body and cannot comment on the judgements that are made by planning authorities. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made, to check whether there was fault in the decision-making process.
15. Before a planning decision was made, the members of the planning committee had access to the planning file, which included plans showing land levels before and after development, scaled plans showing the design of the building and its elevations.
16. The planning case officer wrote a report, setting out what they considered to be the key issues. In doing so, they used their discretion to make choices about what the main issues were, and how best to explain them. We are not an appeal body for officer judgements like these, and in the absence of fault in the decision‑making process, we cannot criticise them.
17. After initially asking for a pause to consider a reduction in building height, the Council decided it had enough information to make a judgement, and it approved the application.
18. I understand why Mrs X is concerned about the impact the new development will have on her home and how it will change the local environment, but these issues were considered before a decision was made. The Council has followed the decision-making process we would expect, and so we found no fault.
19. It is possible that some planning committee members are now, with the benefit of hindsight, regretful of their decision to approve the application. However, the planning process provides a time-limited opportunity for councils to assert planning control. Decision makers may ask questions, require information, or defer decisions to allow more time, before they make their judgements. Before they vote, it is important they satisfy themselves that they are ready to do so. Though some may now be surprised by what has happened, information on land levels, along with scaled plans, cross-sections, building elevations, landscape reports and photos, were all available to view on the planning file. The ‘before and after’ levels plans show that levels on some parts of the land, particularly those nearest residents, would be raised to construct the floor of the building. We cannot know how well any individual member studied or understood this information, but it is, along with the outcome of the Council’s decision, part of the public record.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council approved the development.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman