Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for the same site. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning applications to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider the cumulative effect of multiple planning applications made for the same site over five years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider the cumulative impact of successive planning applications for the same site in the area where he lives.
6. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7. The Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) is clear that “each application (or request for a screening opinion) should be considered on its own merits”. However, the PPG notes that there may be occasions “when other existing or approved development may be relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely as a consequence of a proposed development”. Local Planning Authorities are therefore required to “always have regard to the possible cumulative effects arising from any existing or approved development”.
8. I have reviewed planning applications which are available on the Council’s website. There is no evidence to show the Council failed to consider the planning history on the site. It is clear the applications are for the same site and from the same agent.
9. The location of listed buildings in the village are noted. The Council consulted:
• the Parish Meeting; and
• the highways department and district council.
10. It received no objections subject to highway condition
11. Also, site notices for the applications were displayed. This satisfies the publicisation requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.
12. From the information I have seen I am satisfied the applications to which Mr X refers, contain details of the relevant planning history for the site. I am satisfied the Council was aware of the development being proposed before approving the applications.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered multiple planning applications for a site near his village.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman