Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council’s Highways Authority officers acted when asked to advise a local planning authority about his planning application. Mr X said he suffered financial loss because of lost business. There was no fault in the way the Council acted.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council’s Highways Authority (HA) officers considered his planning application when asked to comment by a local planning authority (LPA) of a District Council.
2. Mr X says that because of delay, poor judgement and vexatious behaviour, his business was not able to operate, causing him financial loss.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from the LPA files, including the decisions by the planning authority, the planning inspectorate, plans and the case officer reports.
6. I gave the Council and Mr X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Local planning authorities (LPAs) should approve planning applications that accord with policies on 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 over another’s land;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.
10. LPAs may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
11. Regulations set out lists of statutory consultees that must be consulted before planning decisions are made. The various circumstances in which the highways authority (HA) must be consulted are set out in a schedule to the regulations.
12. A LPA must consider consultation responses, but whether to approve the planning application or impose conditions is a decision for it to make. The LPA is not obliged to follow the advice it receives.

What happened

13. Mr X applied to his District Council LPA to change the use of part of his land. He intended to use the land for a new business venture.
14. The LPA consulted the HA. A HA officer visited and observed the access to the highway. The HA officer recommended the LPA refuse the application for highway safety reasons.
15. The LPA refused the application and Mr X appealed against its decision. The planning inspector upheld his appeal and granted approval subject to planning conditions, some of which related to highway safety matters.
16. Mr X applied to discharge the highway planning conditions, by submitting plans already used in his planning application. His application to discharge the conditions was revised and was eventually approved by the LPA.
17. Mr X believes his application was delayed because of the decisions and actions of HA officers. He says:
• The HA acted on the personal opinion of just one its officers;
• The LPA officer said he had no choice but to follow the advice of the HA officer;
• A HA officer refused to change his mind when contacted by Council members acting on Mr X’s behalf;
• A HA officer caused delay by querying a simple mistake by the planning inspectorate.
18. Mr X wanted financial compensation for his losses. He also wanted the Council to accept fault on the part of its HA officers. He believed HA officers should be trained to realise how their decisions affect lives and livelihoods.

My findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. If we find fault in the decision-making process, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant. If we find fault and recommend a remedy to an individual, we aim to put them in the position they would have been if the fault had not occurred.
20. Mr X complained about the advice given by Council HA officers to the LPA.
21. I have seen no evidence of what was said or understood by what was said in the conversation Mr X had with an LPA officer. However, the LPA is responsible for making decisions on planning applications. The HA officer can recommend refusal or approval of an application or approval subject to conditions, but the LPA is not obliged to follow that advice.
22. There was an appeal against the LPA decision and Mr X’s proposal was granted permission by a planning inspector. The planning inspectorate is not a body within our jurisdiction, and I cannot investigate the decisions it makes. If Mr X was unhappy with the conditions imposed by the inspector, he could have challenged them at the time or sought to vary them afterwards. He could also have sought costs against the LPA in a separate application to the inspector, if he believed the LPA had acted unreasonably during the appeal process.
23. Mr X did not challenge the conditions imposed by the planning inspector but sought to discharge them with a separate application to the LPA.
24. There was some further involvement by the HA at this point and it gave advice to the LPA before it decided to discharge the conditions.
25. Mr X’s complaints are not about the processes by which the HA officers acted, but more about how they exercised their judgements. There is no evidence of problems within the decision-making process and so I find no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I completed my investigation as I found no fault in the way the Council acted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman