Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council considered and its committee decided a planning application for the development of a site next to her property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in the planning processes to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the core planning outcome Mrs X seeks from the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next to a site which was the subject of a planning application to the Council. The Council’s planning committee granted permission for houses on the site. Mrs X complains:
1. a planning officer changed their position on the number and height of the properties which could be built there;
2. officers gave contradictory positions on the parking impacts caused by the development;
3. officers accepted shorter separation distances than required between the first‑floor windows of the new properties and existing properties;
4. the planning committee allowed the developer to show misleading documents on separation distances at the planning meeting;
5. planning committee members were unaware of the unrealistic vehicle tracking drawings submitted by the developer so were unprepared for the meeting and had not seen relevant information;
6. the Council did not acknowledge or respond to any comments or take into account local residents’ objections.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to:

• return to the planning officer's original recommendation to build fewer properties on the site, a single property with two storeys;
• create a policy to respond to all comments made by affected residents;
• not allow officers to change recommendations when faced with the same facts;
• review the employment positions of employees who changed their views;
• follow planning policies to enhance a local area rather than allow overdevelopment which will have detrimental impacts;
• make sure Councillors have fully reviewed all available information before meetings to make better judgements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process followed to make the decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. Mrs X complains a planning officer changed their view on the number and height of the properties which would be acceptable on the site. Councils as planning authorities are required to consider any valid application as put before them. They cannot replace the scheme applied for with different or previous proposals. Decisions or views given on a different development on the same site do not restrict the officer when giving their recommendations on a new application. They are required to consider each application using the relevant material planning issues when giving their view. It was not fault for the Council’s officer to give their professional judgement on the application as submitted here. In any event, the officer was not the decision-maker as the application went to the planning committee to decide it. It was open to the committee to disagree with the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.
8. Mrs X says the Council’s officers gave contradictory positions on the parking issues caused by the development and were unaware of the vehicle tracking drawings submitted by the developer were unrealistic. Officers accepted the plans for parking, manoeuvring and turning and placed a condition on the permission, requiring the developer to implement them. The Council says the committee saw the different vehicle tracking information from the developer and an objector when they made their decision. If the committee had concerns about the site’s access and provision for vehicles, they could have delayed their decision to ask for more information or explanation. There is not enough evidence there was fault by the committee when considering the application and information before them and made their decision on this aspect of the application.
9. Mrs X says officers accepted shorter separation distances than required between the new properties and existing properties. Officers took account of the measurements from Mrs X’s house to her boundary, and the further distance from the boundary to the side elevation of the nearest new property, which the developer increased at first-floor level. Their report determines the distances to be acceptable for the residential density of the area. Officers found the orientation of the new properties would not allow direct views from them into the habitable rooms of Mrs X and her neighbours. They did not consider the new properties would be overbearing and oppressive for existing properties, nor cause such noise, loss of privacy or light to justify refusing the application. It was for the planning committee to decide whether they accepted the officer’s report on the amenity issues. We note Mrs X says the committee allowed the developer to show misleading documents on separation distances at the planning meeting. It was for Members to seek clarification of the distances involved if they considered the information unclear. The committee was satisfied it could make its decision using the information it had before it. There is not enough evidence Members were misled when making their decision here to warrant us investigating.
10. Officers gathered relevant information about the development, including the public representations, to produce their report. The committee then considered that report and additional available information to make their decision. If the committee had concerns about any material planning matter, including those raised by Mrs X, it could have deferred the decision to get more information or refused the permission. The committee was satisfied there were no material planning grounds for them to reject the application. That is a decision it was entitled to reach.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s or committee’s planning decision-making processes to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a recommendation or for a committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. We understand Mrs X considers the Council should acknowledge and respond to planning objections. There is no duty on officers to respond to individual comments. The planning process is not a correspondence between officers and those who comment on an application. Mrs X also says the Council did not take her or others’ objections into account in the planning process. The Council officer’s report to the committee summarised over several pages the objections raised in response to the application by residents. This is in line with the requirements of the planning process for authorities to take account of representations received. The officer report then considered each material issue in relation to the proposed development, within the local and national planning policy contexts, to make a recommendation to the committee. There is not enough evidence of fault in this part of the process to justify an investigation.
13. We recognise the core outcome Mrs X wants from her complaint is for the Council to grant permission for the developer to build a single two-storey property on the site. To do this would require us to order the Council to revoke the permission as granted. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. That we cannot achieve the core planning outcome Mrs X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault in the planning processes to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the key planning outcome she seeks from the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman