Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve an outline planning application on land behind X’s home. We did not investigate this complaint further. This is because we have seen no evidence to suggest we would find fault, recommend a remedy or reach any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. The person that complained to us will be referred to as X.
2. X complained about the Council’s decision to approve an outline application for development on land behind X’s home. X said:
• the decision should have been made by planning committee, not by officers using delegated powers;
• the Council concealed documents and did not provide information in response to X’s freedom of information request; and
• their concerns about surface water drainage arrangements were not resolved.

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
• any alleged fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint or parts of this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. I gave the Council and X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Planning decisions can be for ‘full’ applications, where all or most details needed to make a decision are provided by the applicant. Alternatively, applicants can submit ‘outline’ applications, with key details so the principle of development can be considered. If approved, outline applications can made lawful by the submission and approval of ‘reserved matters’ applications, where remaining details are considered.
7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
9. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
11. Not all planning decisions are made by Council planning committees. Councils may delegate decisions to planning officers to make some decisions, restricted to circumstances set out in delegation schemes. Delegation schemes are found in a Council’s constitution.

What happened

12. Several years ago, the Council approved an outline planning application for housing development on land behind X’s home. The application was approved, but the development did not proceed at that time.
13. More recently, the Council received another outline application for a similar development proposal. The application includes a layout plan, that shows the houses directly behind X are about 45 metres away. There is a closer house, which is about 25 metres away, but this is at an angle of about 45 degrees.
14. The planning application was considered by a case officer, who wrote a report which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of planning history considered relevant;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees;
• planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including principle of development, design and character, impact on residential amenity, flood risk, biodiversity and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions, several of which related to surface water drainage arrangements.
15. The application was approved by a senior officer who used it using delegated powers.

My findings

16. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
17. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
18. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
19. I should not investigate this complaint further, and my reasons are as follows:
• The proposal is in outline form and more applications and decisions will be necessary before development can go ahead. It is possible this might not happen, or that the plans that have already been considered could be replaced by others. We cannot recommend a remedy for a speculative injustice.
• The plans that have been considered so far show significant separation distances between the rear of X’s home and proposed houses. Because of this, even if the houses shown in these plans were built, I could not say X was caused a significant injustice we should remedy.
• Before the Council made its decision, it considered the plans, comments from the public and other consultees, the planning history of the site and relevant policy and guidance. Concerns about flood risk and drainage arrangements were considered and a number of conditions imposed to ensure control. This is the planning decision-making process we would expect and so further investigation is unlikely to result in a finding of fault.
• I read the Council’s delegation scheme and have seen no evidence to show the application should have been decided by the planning committee.
• Complaints about issues relating to access to information are a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office. Details about the ICO can be found at https://ico.org.uk/.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I ended my investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a significant injustice we should remedy or any other meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman