Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council approved a planning application for a new development that she said will cause a loss of trees and views, and increase light, noise and environmental pollution. She said this is having an impact on her mental and physical health. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council approved a planning application for a new development that will cause damage to the area, including loss of trees and a wildlife corridor.
2. Mrs X said the creation of new roads around her house will cause light, noise and environmental pollution. She said there will be a loss of nature and her views. She said this is having an impact on her mental and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. General planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, supporting new housing and protecting existing residential amenities. While councils must take account of relevant policies and material planning issues, they may give competing considerations different weight. In practice, this means councils may grant planning permission for development that does not comply with all relevant planning policies.
9. Normally, a case officer will prepare a report, assessing the application against relevant local plan policies and other material planning considerations. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission. A senior planning officer will then decide most applications, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application.
10. Planning committees usually consider the case officer’s report and visit the site. If a case officer has proposed refusing the application and the planning committee decides to approve the application, the committee must give reasons for this decision.
11. The planning committee’s reasons for its decisions must be intelligible and adequate. The reasons must show what conclusion the committee reached on the main important controversial issues. Reasons can be briefly stated and only need to refer to the main issues in the dispute, not every material consideration.
12. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

What happened

13. Developers applied for planning permission to build new houses near Mrs X’s house.
14. The Case Officer assessed the application and recommended refusing it. The Case Officer said the benefits of the proposed development were outweighed by significant harm and conflicts of Council policies.
15. The Council’s planning committee decided to approve the application.
16. Mrs X complained.
17. In its complaint responses, the Council explained the reasons the planning committee approved the application. It said its committee members were entitled to take a different view from the Case Officer. It said when a planning committee goes against an officer’s recommendation, it has to provide planning reasons. It said these reasons were set out in the decision notice. The Council said the planning committee can reach an alternative conclusion to the Case Officer by weighing the planning reasons differently.
18. Mrs X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

19. Mrs X disagrees with the planning committee’s decision to approve the planning application. She complained the approved development will cause damage to the area, including loss of trees and a wildlife corridor.
20. As I have said above, planning committees must give reasons for their decisions, including if a planning committee makes a different decision to a case officer’s recommendation.
21. I have read the notes of the planning committee meeting. I find the committee gave due consideration to the Case Officer’s report and the reasons for their recommendation to refuse the application.
22. However, the planning committee decided that the benefits of the development outweighed the harm it would cause.
23. As I have said above, the reasons for planning committees’ decisions must be intelligible and adequate. The reasons must show what conclusion the committee reached on the main important controversial issues.
24. I find the planning committee meeting notes show how it reached its conclusion to approve the application. I find the decision was intelligible and adequate.
25. Specifically in regard to the loss of trees that Mrs X complained of, the committee decided the applicant’s proposal to plant 70 new trees outweighed the loss of the other trees.
26. Our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
27. The planning committee was entitled to reach a different decision than the Case Officer. The planning committee set out its reasons for deciding to approve the application, and I find no fault in how it made its decision. Because there is no fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot say it should have reached a different outcome. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.
28. Mrs X believes the Council only approved the application because it was for 100% affordable housing. She said the Council failed to take into consideration other factors such as the area, suitability, and the impact on local services and amenities.
29. I do not agree. I find the Case Officer appropriately considered the impact of the proposed development, as they should have. I find the planning committee then considered the application as it should have. It weighed up the different factors involved with the application and made a decision it was entitled to make. There is no fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. I do not uphold Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman