Summary: Mr X complains there were procedural irregularities in respect of a planning development decision near his home in December 2023. He says this has caused permission to be granted which could have been avoided. We have found no fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains there were procedural irregularities in respect of a planning development decision near his home in December 2023.
2. He says this has caused permission to be granted which could have been avoided.

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 have considered the information Mr X provided and have discussed the complaint over the telephone with him.
6. I have considered the information the Council provided.
7. Both Mr X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. Any comments received have been considered before a final decision was issued.

Back to top

What I found

8. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
9. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
10. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid material planning reasons.
11. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations.
12. General planning policies may pull in different directions (eg in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities).
13. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

The National Planning Policy Framework

14. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not change the statutory status of local development plans as the starting point for decision making. It constitutes guidance in drawing up plans, and is a material consideration in deciding applications.
15. Where the local development plan is silent or the relevant policies are out of date, planning applications must be decided in accordance with a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF, or the NPPF indicates development should be restricted. This is known as ‘tilted balance’.

Sustainable development

16. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
17. Sustainable development is that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

What happened

18. The Council produced a committee report in late 2023. This recommended the committee grants permission for the application the complaint refers to. The committee report is clear and refers to the relevant version of the NPPF.
19. The Councils planning committee considered the application in late 2023. At that time the planning authority could not show it had enough housing land supply in line with the requirements of the NPPF. This tilted the balance towards granting planning permission for the application development.
20. Shortly after the planning committee meeting, the Government updated the NPPF, making changes to calculating housing land supply. The Government then produced further guidance a few months later. This provided clarity on how local planning authorities should calculate housing land supply. Following the additional guidance the Council considered it had enough housing land supply.
21. Mr X raised a complaint in late March 2024. Mr X said within eight working days of the decision the Council made on the application it was then able to say its 5-year plan for supply was up to date. Mr X said the Council must have been aware the change in guidance was close and therefore could have reached a different decision. Mr X also said meeting minutes showed the committee received wrong information.
22. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in mid-April 2024. It said central government produce policy and further guidance not the Council. The Council said it did not know about the revised NPPF until the government published it.
23. The Council said it obtained legal advice following the publication of the revised NPPF. The advice confirmed how the Council should measure housing land supply. This showed the Council did not have enough supply and therefore tilted balance still applied.
24. The Council said it was not until the government published the updated National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in February 2024 that its position changed so tilted balance did not apply.
25. The Council also confirmed it had made an error in the draft minutes and it corrected this.
26. Mr X sent a further complaint in May 2024 which said he believed there was a discrepancy about when the Council knew tilted balance would no longer apply. Mr X said another party told him the Council were aware soon after the NPPF was revised that it could prove it had enough housing land supply.
27. Mr X also questioned why in the planning meeting the Council used the example of the tree-officer not having an objection but did not highlight objections made by other parties.
28. The Council responded to the stage two complaint in June 2024 and provided Mr X with information showing it did not believe it had the needed supply of housing land in early 2024. The Council also provided details of the government’s updated PPG.
29. The Council also told Mr X it publishes draft minutes in the interest of transparency and openness. The Council says it approves draft minutes at the following planning committee meeting. It also said the reference to the tree officer was in response to a councillor query.
30. The Council has said the Planning Inspectorate issued an appeal decision in relation to another application in its area in Spring 2024. This concluded the Council did not have sufficient housing land supply as it thought, and the tilted balance remained.
31. The Council granted permission for the application Mr X has complained about in July 2024.

Analysis

32. Mr X believes the Council should have been aware of the changes coming to the NPPF before the planning committee met to consider the application. He says this could have affected the decision reached by the committee.
33. There is no evidence to show the Council were aware of the changes to the NPPF until the government published it which was after its planning committee met and considered the application.
34. The government did not publish the updated PPG alongside the revised NPPF. This was produced a few months later. After the updated PPG was issued the Council changed its position about whether tilted balance applied.
35. A subsequent appeal looked at various issues including the Council’s calculation of the amount of housing supply land it had. This concluded the Council could not show a four-year housing supply over five years in line with the revised NPPF. Therefore, tilted balance still applied.
36. The Council cannot ignore a recent and relevant planning inspectorates’ decision when deciding applications.
37. While there has been some change in the Council’s position in the months between its planning committee considering the application and when it granted planning permission, tilted balance applied at both times. The change in position between times does not affect the housing land supply position set out in the committee report.
38. The Council has explained the error in the draft minutes and how the reference came about and I understand has corrected the error in the approved minutes.
39. I have not found fault in the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have found no fault in the actions of the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman