Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of a local residents’ group that the Council did not have due regard to the Equality Act 2010 in its decisions to grant planning permission applications close to their homes. We find no fault with the Council’s decision-making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of a local residents’ group that the Council did not have due regard to the Equality Act 2010 in its decisions to grant planning permission applications close to his home.
2. Mr X says this led to more vehicles using a popular local highway which is unsafe for pedestrians.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. Mr X complains about several planning applications the Council made decisions on dating from 2021. Mr X complained to us in August 2024. As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons for us to do so.
9. In this case, I have decided there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and look back further than August 2023. I have considered the planning applications the Council made decisions on between August 2023 and August 2024.
10. The Council made decisions on three relevant planning applications between August 2023 and August 2024. Out of the three applications, two were refused. Therefore, I have focused my investigation on the one relevant planning application between this time which the Council granted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered all comments received before making this final decision.
12. I also considered the relevant statutory guidance, and Council’s policy, as set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

13. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
14. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
15. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.

16. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.
17. Section 7 of legislation The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 requires a local authority officer to produce a written record of their decision and reasons when deciding on the grant of a permission ie planning permission or on a matter affecting the rights of individuals.
18. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
19. However, the courts have made it 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.

What happened

20. In October 2023, the Council granted a planning application for two residential properties. The planning application was considered by a case officer, who wrote a report which included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a letter of objection from the Parish Council;
• planning policy and guidance considered relevant;
• an assessment of the main planning considerations, including design, and the impact on residential amenity; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
21. Mr X submitted a letter of objection which included concerns about the impact of increased vehicle use to pedestrians, and the narrow nature of the footpath. The Parish Council’s letter of objection detailed a concern that the private entry road to the properties coincides with a public footpath which is narrow in some places.
22. In their report, the planning officer addressed the concern about the narrow access. They said a passing bay will be added to address the narrow access. They assessed the footpath as a ‘relatively safe pedestrian/cycle route’. They noted the objections to the planning proposal however considered planning permission should be granted.
23. In January 2024, Mr X contacted the Council. He reported concerns on behalf of himself and his neighbours about its decision to approve planning permissions, which he said would increase vehicle usage on a path that was previously for pedestrians only.

Analysis

24. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees.
25. Mr X complains the case officer’s report does not specifically address the Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty. There is no requirement in legislation for case officer’s reports to explicitly state it has considered the Equality Act 2010 or its Public Sector Equality Duty.
26. Mr X says the Council should have completed an equality impact assessment. An equality impact assessment is a tool used by organisations to help make sure their policies and practices are fair and do not disadvantage people with protected characteristics. There is no statutory requirement for the Council to have completed an equality impact assessment in its decision-making process. The assessment was not mandatory so I cannot find fault with its decision not to complete one.
27. The Council is required to show it has considered all key material planning considerations in its decision making. The Council took account of the plans, the relevant policies and the material planning considerations. Although there is an element of uncertainty about whether the Council considered Mr X’s specific objections, it considered the broad issues raised of narrow path and increased vehicle use and the impact on pedestrians. It has put mitigations in place in response to concerns about shared vehicle and pedestrian access, and the width of the path. I am satisfied the Council considered all key material planning considerations in its decision-making process, and so I find no fault.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have completed my investigation. I find no fault with the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman