Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of himself and other residents of a conservation area about the Council granting planning permission for a development that involved the demolition of two houses in a conservation area. We have not found fault with how the Council made its decision and therefore cannot question the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of himself and other residents of a conservation area about Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (the Council) granting planning permission under delegated powers for a development that involved the demolition of two houses in a conservation area. He said the Council failed to follow proper procedure by not referring the application to committee despite significant objections and a councillor’s request, and wrongly applied planning policies. He and other residents said this caused injustice because a contentious decision was not properly scrutinised and would harm the character of the area, including through increased traffic and parking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning permission

7. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
8. Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

9. Material planning considerations do not include:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Decision-making process & delegation

11. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.

Conservation Areas

12. Councils have the power to create Conservation Areas. These are areas considered to have special architectural or historic interest that should be preserved or enhanced.
13. Councils are under a duty to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing Conservation Areas when making decisions on planning applications. Even if a proposed development is outside a Conservation Area, councils may take account of the impact it will have upon the Conservation Area itself.

What happened

14. The Council had previously refused planning permission for development within a Conservation Area. It later received a further planning application for the same site which proposed demolishing existing buildings and constructing two blocks of flats. The Council began a consultation on the application and invited comments from consultees and local residents.
15. Mr X and other local residents objected to the application. Their concerns included the impact on the Conservation Area, increased parking and traffic pressures, and the loss of historic buildings and the area's character.
16. A local councillor indicated they wished the application to be referred to the planning committee if officers were minded to approve it. The Council later decided the councillor's formal referral request had not been received within the timescale set out in its scheme of delegation. It therefore determined the application under delegated powers.
17. The Council consulted relevant officers and organisations, considered the objections it received and prepared a detailed officer report. The report noted the site was within a Conservation Area and considered the area's key characteristics and distinctive character. It also considered the site's planning history, the impact on the Conservation Area, traffic and parking issues, relevant local and national planning policies, housing need and other planning matters.
18. The Council acknowledged objections from residents and concerns raised by its conservation officer. However, it concluded the proposal would not cause harm to the Conservation Area and that the benefits of the development, including the provision of additional housing, outweighed any identified disadvantages.
19. The Council granted outline planning permission, subject to a Section 106 agreement and a number of planning conditions. These included requirements for further approval of matters such as landscaping, drainage, biodiversity and tree protection before development could proceed.
20. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the application should have been considered by the planning committee and that the Council had wrongly applied planning policies, particularly in relation to parking and the preservation of the Conservation Area.
21. The Council responded to Mr X. It said it had determined the application in accordance with its scheme of delegation and had properly considered the planning merits of the proposal, including parking, the impact on the Conservation Area, relevant planning policies and residents' objections before reaching its decision.
22. Analysis
23. When deciding the planning application, the Council needed to consider the relevant planning policies and material planning considerations. These included the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, parking and highway issues, consultation responses and any impact on neighbouring amenity.
24. The evidence shows the Council considered these matters before reaching its decision. It consulted relevant officers and organisations, considered objections from Mr X and other residents, and prepared a detailed officer report setting out the issues it considered relevant to the application.
25. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consider the impact on the Conservation Area. However, the officer report specifically addressed this issue. It recognised the site's location within a Conservation Area, considered the area's character and significance, took account of objections from residents and comments from the conservation officer, and assessed the likely impact of the development. The Council ultimately concluded the proposal would not harm the Conservation Area. I am satisfied it properly considered this issue.
26. Mr X also said the Council wrongly applied planning policies, particularly in relation to parking. The officer report shows the Council considered residents' concerns about parking and traffic, the relevant policies and guidance, and the views of specialist consultees. The Council acknowledged concerns about increased on-street parking but explained why it considered the proposed level of parking acceptable. I recognise that Mr X disagrees with that conclusion, however the evidence shows the Council considered the issue and gave reasons for its decision.
27. Mr X further said the level of local opposition and the planning history of the site meant the application should have been referred to the planning committee. The evidence shows the Council considered whether the application met the requirements for referral under its scheme of delegation. It concluded the councillor's formal referral request had not been received within the timescale required by its procedures and therefore the application could be determined under delegated powers. I have seen no evidence the Council failed to follow its published arrangements when reaching that decision.
28. The officer report also shows the Council considered the wider planning balance, including the impact on the Conservation Area, local objections, housing need and other material planning considerations. It then decided the proposal was acceptable, subject to a Section 106 agreement and a number of planning conditions. Those conditions required further approval of certain matters before development could proceed.
29. Our role is not to decide whether planning permission should have been granted. We consider whether there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision. In this case, the evidence shows the Council considered the relevant information, took account of objections and consultation responses, applied the relevant policies, and recorded reasons for its decision. As I have found no fault in the way the Council made its decision, I cannot question the outcome it reached.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find no fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman