Summary: Group X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development in the countryside against its planning policies. We found no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission.

The complaint

1. Group X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application because it:

• did not properly check ownership of the application site;
• failed to refer the application to its planning committee for decision;
• failed to consider relevant planning policies and gave too much weight to an expired planning permission; and
• failed to consider a recent appeal decision refusing planning permission for similar development.

2. Group X also said the Council failed to positively engage with them and discuss their concerns about its decision to grant planning permission.
3. Group X said the Council’s actions and unhelpful attitude led to many residents losing confidence in the Council’s planning service. Group X wanted the Council to evidence and justify not taking the application to the planning committee for decision. They also wanted the Council to commission an independent review of its planning decision making procedures.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I:

• considered the complaint and supporting papers provided by Group X;
• talked to the authorised representative of Group X about the complaint;
• considered the Council’s report on the application and other relevant planning information available on its website;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting papers about the complaint;
• shared Council information with Group X; and
• gave Group X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Most development needs planning permission from the council. Councils must consider each planning application on its own merits. They must also decide applications in line with relevant policies in their development plans unless material planning considerations indicate they should not. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest but not private matters. Examples of material considerations are traffic generation, overlooking and noise. The developer’s personal conduct and the view from peoples’ homes and potential changes to house prices are not material planning considerations.
8. Councils publicise planning applications so people may comment on development proposals. Peoples’ comments on development and land use grounds will be material planning considerations which councils must take into account in deciding applications. Taking account of a representation does not mean a council must agree with it.
9. A planning case officer may prepare a report assessing the development proposals against relevant policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to approve or refuse planning permission. The courts have made clear that case officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues;
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

10. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers but councillors on the planning committee decide some applications. A council’s constitution (working rules) will set out when councillors must or may decide an application.
11. Planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, promoting new housing development and protecting existing residential amenities. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in deciding an application. So, councillors at committee do not have to accept the recommendation in their officers’ report. They may give different weight to the material planning considerations and reach a different view and decision on an application.
12. Developers have a legal right of appeal to the independent Planning Inspectorate (PINs) against a refusal of planning permission.

What happened

13. The Council’s Planning Committee, having considered an officer’s report recommending refusal, granted planning permission for development (‘the Permission’). The Permission had a time limit within which development had to start on site. The Council received a further planning application (‘the Application’) for the same type of development on the same land (‘the Site’). The time limit on the Permission had not passed when the Council received the Application but had when officers decided to grant it planning permission. Group X had objected to both planning applications. Their main concern was the applications proposed inappropriate development in the countryside.
14. Group X complained to the Council about its decision to grant the Application planning permission. They said the Council’s Planning Committee should have decided the Application, not officers. Group X also believed the Site owner was related to a councillor. Group X said the Application proposed development which was a significant departure from the Council’s planning policies. And the decision also wrongly relied on the expired Permission. Group X also said the Council had failed to consider a recent appeal decision refusing planning permission for similar development on land near the Site.
15. In response, the Council said the Permission established the development proposed by the Application was acceptable in principle. This had significant weight in deciding the Application. It decided applications on their merits as shown by its grants and refusals of planning permission for similar development on nearby land. Its officer report on the Application showed it had considered planning policies, peoples’ comments, and material planning issues in reaching its decision. The Council also said it had no reason to believe there was any link between the applicant and its councillors. Checks with the Land Registry and companies house had found no such connections. And there had been no grounds to refer the Application to the Planning Committee for decision.
16. Group X, dissatisfied with the Council’s response, complained to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

Site ownership

17. The Council’s planning application form asks applicants if they or their agent are, or are related to, any of its officers or councillors. If identified, such officers or councillors should not take part in deciding the application. This helps avoid any bias or perception of bias in decision making. Here, an agent acting for a company (‘the Company’) made the Application. And the form said the agent and the Company were not, and were not related to, a councillor or Council officer.
18. As people may apply for planning permission to develop land they do not own, application forms must also include a completed ownership certificate. Where the applicant does not own the proposed development site, the certificate must confirm the owner knows about the application. Here, the agent completed the ownership certificate confirming the Company was the sole owner of the Site. However, before it decided the Application, Group X said they told the Council that Land Registry papers did not show the Company as the Site owner. Group X also said the person named as owner was related to a councillor.
19. In replying to the Ombudsman, the Council said it did not check ownership of the Site before granting the Application planning permission. And it held no records of the checks it made later. But it provided formal 2024 ‘office copy entries’ from the Land Registry. These papers showed the Company bought the land shown in Group X’s Land Registry papers before the agent made the Application. The Council also provided information from companies’ house, including the Company directors’ names. The Council said it was not aware the named directors were related to its councillors or officers.
20. Responsibility for properly and accurately completing an application for planning permission rests with the applicant or their agent. And it is a criminal offence to make a false or materially misleading statement knowingly or recklessly in an ownership certificate. So, generally councils may accept information provided by an applicant, or their agent, as correct. Here, I saw no evidence the Council checked with the Company or their agent about ownership of the Site when Group X raised the issue. But the Council did not need to carry out extensive checks. A telephone call or email to the agent seeking confirmation the certificate was correct might likely be enough.
21. And here, Group X’s ownership papers were not an ‘official copy’ of the Land Registry records. The papers said they would not show any application waiting to change the official record. The official papers provided by the Council also included other land and not just that shown in the Land Registry papers accessed by Group X. Unsurprisingly, the two sets of Land Registry papers had different ‘title numbers’ as they did not concern the exact same land. Overall, I saw no evidence the Company did not own the Site when making the Application. I also saw no evidence the Company, its directors, or its planning agent were related to any councillor or Council officer.

Referral to the Planning Committee

22. Group X pointed to the Council’s constitution saying the Planning Committee should decide planning applications that were:

• potentially controversial;
• likely to be of significant public interest;
• subject to significant material objections not addressed, resolved or mitigated in processing the application.

Group X said many residents objected, which showed significant public interest in the Application. And many objections raised issues of potential controversy. The Council had not addressed or resolved these objections.

23. The Council pointed to the constitution saying referrals to the Planning Committee were made where “in the opinion” of a senior Council officer any of the three bullet points at paragraph 22 applied. This meant decisions concerned the subjective judgement of the senior officer. It did not have a note showing why the senior officer had not referred the Application to the Planning Committee. However, it confirmed the senior officer, in considering all Council planning decisions, did not find the paragraph 22 bullet points applied to the Application. The officer report addressed objections to the Application, which objections were not controversial. The same issues arose, and councillors had considered them, in granting the Permission. There had been no material changes affecting the principle of development established by the Permission. It also did not view the objection numbers as significant.
24. The Government issues Planning Practice Guidance (‘the PPG’). The PPG refers to effective delegation schemes ensuring councils quickly decide cases raising no significant planning issues. The PPG says this means councils can properly focus on applications of greatest significance in their area. Here, Group X and the Council have differing views on whether the Planning Committee ought to have decided the Application. I recognised Group X and other residents living near the Site might view the Application as significant and controversial. However, in line with the PPG, the Council’s senior officer would view applications from a district wide position. And it is not for me to arbitrate on differing views, which concern the merits of Council decisions.
25. However, here, while after the event, the Council provided a sound and sustainable case for not referring the Application to the Planning Committee. That is, the Application was not for major development. The Planning Committee granted the Permission for similar development, raising the same issues, on the Site relatively recently. And there had been no substantive change to the Council’s planning policies since the grant of the Permission.

Consideration of the Application and the appeal decision

26. Group X said the Council failed to consider relevant planning policies and gave too much weight to the expired Permission in deciding the Application. Group X also said the Council failed to consider a recent appeal decision refusing planning permission for similar development.
27. The Council said its report assessing the Application took account of the decision to grant the Permission, which established the principle of the development on the Site. It would have been inappropriate to ignore the Planning Committee’s earlier decision, which decision carried weight in assessing the Application. The Council also said it had granted and refused applications for similar development in the area over the last four years. It considered each case on its merits and a site’s planning history was a significant matter.
28. I recognised Group X’s concern the report on the Application did not address in detail planning policies about development in the countryside. However, the Council’s Planning Committee had recently considered those policies in granting the Permission. The Permission formed part of the planning history of the Site and that planning history was a material consideration in deciding the Application. The Application report referred to the Permission as establishing the proposed development as acceptable in principle on the Site. The Council was entitled to reach that view in considering the Application. I did not therefore find the Council at fault for not assessing in detail the Application against its countryside policies given the principle of development was established.
29. The evidence also showed the Council, and its planning officers, were well versed in considering development proposals like that in the Application on land in the surrounding area. The Council had granted and refused applications after considering, among other matters, whether such development was acceptable in the countryside. And some developers had appealed its decisions to refuse planning permission, which sometimes led the Council to refer to appeal decisions when considering other applications in the area.
30. Here, the appeal decision raised by Group X was for land a distance from the Site, while in the surrounding area. While for the same type of development, there were differences between the Site and the Application and the appeal case. Having referred to the Permission and found development of the Site acceptable in principle, the Application report provided evidence the Council had taken account of objections and considered other key planning issues. I saw no fault in how the Council processed the Application. I therefore had no grounds to question its decision, to grant planning permission, however strongly Group X might find it unacceptable.

Engagement

31. Group X also said the Council failed to positively engage with them and discuss their concerns about its decision to grant planning permission. Rather the Council had referred them to the courts if they had concerns about the legality of the planning decision. It had also pointed them to the Ombudsman rather than openly discuss potential flaws in its decision making.
32. I recognised Group X might prefer to discuss with the Council its decision to grant the Application planning permission. However, once the Council issued its decision notice, the Company could rely on it and start the Application development, subject to any planning conditions. To formally challenge a planning decision, people do need to apply to the courts. And, if a council cannot resolve peoples’ complaints through their complaint procedure, it should signpost them to the Ombudsman. I did not therefore find the Council acted with fault in signposting Group X to the courts and the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I completed my investigation finding no fault causing injustice in the Council’s planning decision making.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman