Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application of land which she attends regularly. Mrs X says the Council failed to consider the importance of the land and the impact the development will have on wildlife. Mrs X is also unhappy the application was decided by an officer rather than at panel. We have not found fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application of land which she attends regularly. Mrs X says the Council failed to consider the importance of the land and the impact the development will have on wildlife. Mrs X is also unhappy the application was decided by an officer rather than at panel.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We also 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)
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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council were invited to comment to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Planning applications

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:

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

9. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• 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.

Case officer report

11. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the Council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
12. However, the courts have made it 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.

The Councils constitution

13. The Councils constitution at part 3 defines when a planning application should be determined by committee. It says applications where ten or more representations contrary to the Officers’ recommendation have been received from separate addresses within the period should be determined by committee.
14. It also says a representation shall be taken to mean a letter, signature on a petition or email.

What happened

15. The Council received a planning application in mid-December 2024 concerning land which Mrs X regularly uses.
16. A group Mrs X belongs to submitted an objection to the development in early 2025 including that the application was premature and should not be considered until the Masterplan was in place, the benefit of 2m deep peat in places on the site and the benefit to be gained from this and the proximity to a site of biological importance. The objection also raised concerns about the impact on wildlife, a potential fire hazard and increased flood risk.
17. The Council recognised the groups objections alongside 5 other responses in its officer report and summarised the objections raised.
18. The officers report also summarised further objections received from the group following the submission of amended plans and a reconsultation. These included impact on nesting birds, requesting recognition of Natural England’s expertise and that it is wholly inappropriate to sacrifice irreplaceable habit for minimal benefits.
19. The officers report also noted a further late submission of comments from the group.
20. The officers report responded to the objections raised and confirmed Natural England and the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit had been consulted as experts. It went on to say The Outline Peat Management Plan was developed in line with Natural England, and a pre commencement condition would ensure the impact and loss of peat was minimised. The report says this will also allow any mitigation and compensation to be agreed prior to works starting.
21. The officers report also explained why the application could be decided without the Masterplan, which had not been finalised, being in place and confirmed that Natural England supported the Peat Management Plan put forward.
22. The officers report further considered the impact on tress, ecology and biodiversity and habitats and protected species. The officers report also considered the impact on species and listed mitigations such as avoiding vegetation clearance when birds are nesting and the installation of bird and bat boxes.
23. The Council approved the application in mid-May 2025.
24. The group Mrs X is part of raised a complaint in mid-June 2025 which raised concerns about how the planning application was considered and how the officer considered various duties. The complaint also raised concerns about the application being determined under delegated authority and not at a planning committee meeting.
25. The Council responded to the complaint in early August 2025 and explained that although it recognised the complaint raised legitimate concerns it considered these were properly addressed during the determination of the application.

Analysis

26. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the Council made.
27. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from specialists, its own policies and information from Mrs X and other interested parties. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
28. Mrs X raised concerns that the application was not determined by the planning committee. However, the Council’s constitution did not require it to be.
29. I have found no fault with how the Council reached the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman