Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ignored its own planning rules/policies when it approved an application which it had previously refused.
2. He wants the planning permission revoked.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council ignored its own planning policies when it approved a planning application which it had previously refused and which had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector at appeal. He says the Council ignored:
• the development is outside of the stated building red line parish
• there is no need for the houses which are not affordable
• there is no infrastructure; and
• the access to the site is dangerous.
7. Mr X also says the Council wrote a mitigation report on sewage disposal at the site for the developer. He says this report:
• is full of inaccuracies
• ignored the fact that the existing combined sewer is already overcapacity; and
• ignored the regular effluent flooding which occurs.
8. The Council failed to determine an application to build four new homes close to Mr X’s home. The applicant appealed to the Planning Inspector against the non-determination.
9. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal because he could not rule out the possibility that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the nearby conservation site. This is because the applicant had not provided enough information on this point.
10. The applicant put in a new application for the same development. The Planning Officer presented a report on the proposal to the Council’s Planning Committee.
11. The report lays out details of:
• The location of the site.
• The proposed development.
• The relevant national and local planning policies.
• The comments and objections received on the application.
• The fact that no objections were received from statutory consultees including (but not limited to):
1. Kent Couty Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation
2. Kent Fire and Rescue Service
3. Southern Water; and
4. KCC Ecology.
12. It also explains the planning history of the site, including the Planning Inspectors’ decision to dismiss the appeal. It included the single reason for the decision to dismiss the appeal.
13. The Planning Officer’s report also outlined the applicant’s proposal for dealing with wastewater from the site. It also explained that, as the site will remain in residential use, there will be no increase in surface water that would impact on the conservation area.
14. The Planning Committee considered the proposal. Mr X and others spoke to the Committee, giving their objections to the proposal.
15. The meeting minutes show the Committee members debated the proposal before deciding to approve the application with conditions.
16. Mr X says the information about sewage disposal at the site is ‘full of inaccuracies’. The report to the Committee shows the Council’s Ecology and Habitat Regulations Assessment consultant was satisfied the calculations are correct and the proposed mitigation measures are acceptable.
17. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to give an opinion on this. Our role is to assess whether the Council considered the material issues before making its decision. In this case the Council consulted an expert who agreed the calculations were correct and the proposed mitigation is acceptable. The Council is entitled to reply on the opinion of the experts it consults.
18. From the information I have seen the Council considered the relevant material planning considerations including its own policies and the decision of the Planning Inspector before deciding to grant planning permission.
19. Mr X wants the planning permission revoked. This is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. Also we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman