Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a site close to Ms X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
• breached its statutory duty under s.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 by allowing demolition and alteration that harm a Conservation Area without adequate public benefit
• failed to apply national flood-risk policy (NPPF and Local Plan CC2) before approving development in Flood Zone 3a, which she says flooded badly in 2015.
• allowed material changes to the proposal without proper public consultation, depriving residents of a chance to comment.
2. Ms X also complains the Council should not have allowed senior planning officers to consider her complaint which is about officers in the same department.

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.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received an application to develop a disused industrial building near Ms X’s home. The site is next to a conservation area.
7. The Council has confirmed the removal of the roof of the building was carried out before the planning application to develop the site was received. Therefore, removal of the roof was not part of the planning application and officers had to consider the application based on the existing building.
8. The Council publicised the application and Ms X objected to the proposal.
9. The planning officer prepared a report on the proposal. This included the relevant national and local polices, a summary of the objections received and comments from statutory consultees. The Council’s conservation officer acknowledged the site borders a conservation area. They explained their reasons for deciding the proposal will cause less than significant harm to the conservation area. The Council did not receive any objections from:
• Historic England
• Highways
• Environmental Health
• Environment Agency
10. The flood risk manager recognised the site is in a high flood risk area. However, they confirmed the proposals to not appear to change the flood risk at the site. They required a Flood Evacuation Plan and for the owner to sign up to flood warnings. They also provided conditions to be attached to any planning permission.
11. The planning officer’s report considered the benefits of bringing an old industrial building back into use, including creation of employment. It also considers the proposed mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact of the development on the areas. The impact of changes to the roof (excluding removal of part of the roof which had already been carried out by the developer) was also considered in the report.
12. The report also considered the change of use of the site from general industrial use to light industrial which includes:
• uses that can be carried out in a residential area without causing harmful impact on resident’s amenity
• offices
• research functions or laboratories
13. The Council chose not to reconsult on the change of use because the proposed light industrial use has less of an impact on the area as opposed to the existing lawful general industrial use. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
14. The report details the proposal and the planning officer explains why they consider the harm to the conservation area is at the lower level of less than substantial.
15. The planning officer also sets out their consideration of the planning balance and why they recommend the application for approval.
16. A senior officer agreed with the recommendation and the application was approved with conditions according to the Council’s scheme of delegation.
17. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. Where there is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council’s followed, we cannot criticise the decision.
18. In this case the planning officer’s report sets out the relevant information and explains what weight has been given to the different issues raised by the proposal. It is for the decision makers to decide what weight to give when assessing the planning balance.
19. Ms X also complains senior planning officers investigated her complaint which was about member of staff in their own department.
20. The Council confirms the stage one response was made by a senior officer who had no prior involvement with the application, was not the planning officer and did not sign off the application. The stage two response was made by a different senior officer, who also had no previous involvement in the case.
21. The Council’s complaint procedure says at stage one of the procedure an investigating officer will review the complaint and make a response within 10 working days or advise if there is a delay. Stage two will be reviewed by a different investigating officer. And a response will be within 20 working days or advise if there is a delay.
22. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to develop a disused industrial building near her home. Nor is there enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman