Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council did not follow the proper process when deciding to grant planning permission for a development in the area where he lives. Mr X says the development will negatively impact the green belt land. He wants the Council to reverse its decision to approve the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

3. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X said the Council’s planning committee did not follow proper procedures in deciding to grant permission for the development for the following reasons:

• The chair of the planning meeting gave his opinion and influenced others
• The committee wrongly assessed the very special circumstances that existed to outweigh the harm to the greenbelt
• Members failed to consider guidance and independently validate information. There was also a lack of due diligence.
• The Planning Committee did not look for evidence from the applicant that alternative sites were considered.

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:

• Impact on the greenbelt;
• 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. I am satisfied that the Officer’s report considered the relevant material planning considerations. These issues were also discussed during the planning committee meeting.

11. Mr X has raised concerns about the impact on the greenbelt. Government guidance says inappropriate development in green belt should not be allowed except in very special circumstances, where the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
12. The Council acknowledged that the development would negatively impact the green belt land. However, it considered that the benefits of the proposal had significant weight in relation to the very special circumstances by which it can grant planning permission. The Council also imposed conditions on the application to mitigate the negative impact it will have on the green belt land. Mr X says alternative sites for the scheme were not considered. But the Officer’s report explains the alternative sites that were considered and explained why they were unsuitable. Mr X has complained about the actions of the chair of the planning committee. However, the Council explained to Mr X the Chair was entitled to share his opinion at the debate, and listened to the views of other members. I find no fault in how the planning committee debated the planning application. There is a separate process if Mr X believes the councillor breached the members code of conduct.
13. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. However, I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the impact of the development and the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable We are therefore unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision to grant conditional planning approval.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman