Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take into account information in relation to the planning application. Mrs X says this has caused her distress due to the impact on the nearby infrastructure. I have not found fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to take into account information in relation to the planning application.
2. Mrs X says this has caused her distress due to the impact on the nearby infrastructure.

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 a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the council 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 evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Most development needs planning permission from the local council. Councils must consider each planning application on its own merits. They must also decide applications in line with relevant policies in their development plans unless material planning considerations indicate they should not. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest but not private matters. Examples of material considerations are traffic generation and overlooking. The developer’s behaviour, the view from peoples’ homes and potential changes to house prices are not material planning considerations.
8. Councils must publicise planning applications, so people may comment on development proposals.
9. A planning case officer may visit the development site. The case officer may also write a report assessing the proposed development against relevant policies and other material planning considerations. Any such report usually ends with a recommendation to approve or refuse the application. The courts have made 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.

10. Planning policies may pull in different directions, for example, promoting new housing and protecting existing residents’ living conditions. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration in deciding a planning application. A senior council officer, acting for their council, will decide most of their council’s planning applications. But each council has rules about when planning committee councillors should decide an application. As decision maker, the senior officer or councillors at committee may, in weighting the material planning considerations, either agree or disagree with the case officer’s report recommendation.
11. Council’s may place conditions on a planning permission to control and regulate the approved development. Council’s may take planning enforcement action if people fail to comply with a planning condition.

What happened

12. After publicising the application and consulting with public bodies, Council planning officers prepared their Report assessing the application. The Report identified relevant national and local planning policies and key issues to consider in deciding the application. The Report also summarised representations received in response to publicity and the Council consulting with other bodies on the application. The summary of representations was also included from the Town Council.
13. The Report included responses from consultees about education, specifically the local High school, and Highways authority. No objections were recorded from these consultees. The Ecology Unit and Local Flood Authority were also consulted and recorded no objections subject to conditions.
14. The Report set out the officers’ assessment of identified key planning issues, including sustainability and the development’s impact on people living near the site. The impacts on nearby residents included extra traffic. The Report concluded the development was acceptable. The Report recommended the grant of planning permission.
15. The Council held a Speakers Panel (Planning) in mid-December 2023. The minutes from the meeting record Highways officers had corrected the traffic movement calculations recorded in the Report and said extra traffic could be accommodated into the local highway network without any detrimental effect.
16. The minutes from the Speakers Panel (Planning) also recorded that two people addressed the panel objecting to the application and one person spoke on behalf of the applicant.
17. The decision listed on the Speakers Panel (Planning) minutes says planning permission was to be granted. This was subject to the conditions listed within the Report and the amended conditions discussed at the Panel and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.
18. Mrs X raised a complaint with the Council in mid-January 2024 and said she was unhappy with the process at the Speakers Panel (Planning) meeting, and she felt the Council had ignored information. Mrs X felt the Council had ignored information about GP services and the High School being oversubscribed, the level of traffic and how flooding would affect the locals. Mrs X also said the new development would destroy an Area of Special Biological interest.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint and said the Officers Report provided an objective assessment of the proposals against the relevant planning framework. The Council said the Report included a summary of objections and it was satisfied members of the panel were aware of the objections raised. The Council also said a transport assessment had been completed and Mrs X’s point about the Area of Special Biological Interest had been addressed in the report.
20. Mrs X raised a further complaint in late February 2024 and said the Council did not address the issues with the GP surgery, High School and the level of objections received.
21. The Council issued a further complaint response in early April 2024 said the Report had considered the material planning matters. The Council also said a new development was not expected to address existing issues with infrastructure.

Analysis

22. The report set out the development proposals and summarised the representations received, which were available for councillors to read in full if they wished. The Report also identified main planning policies and key planning issues for deciding the application. The Report then set out the officers’ assessment of the issues, ending with a recommendation to grant planning permission.
23. The Council then held a Speakers Panel (planning) meeting which allowed speakers to put points to the panel. The Panel heard from representatives objecting to the application as well as a representative for the applicant.
24. I appreciate Mrs X feels the Panel overlooked or did not challenge information provided to it. However, the Panel would have had access to the Report which detailed responses from consultees. The Panel could have asked for additional information had it wished to do so.
25. We are not an appeal body. And our role is neither to ask whether a council could have done things better and or differently nor to agree or disagree with its decision. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how a council made its decision.
26. As a publicly funded body we must also be careful how we use our resources and so cannot always respond to complaints in the detail people might want. Rather, we conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision.
27. Mrs X feels the Council did not consider points including the High School, level of traffic, flooding and an area of Special Biological Interest being destroyed. However, the Council did consider these in the Report. I appreciate Mrs X may not accept the officers view in relation to these aspects, but it is not for me to arbitrate on differing views.
28. Mrs X also says the Council did not consider the oversubscribed GP surgery. The objection in relation to this is recorded in the Report and was therefore available for the Panel to consider.
29. I have not found fault in the way the Council considered the application and therefore cannot question a council’s resulting decision regardless of how strongly a complainant or complainants may disagree with it.

Back to top

Decision

I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman