The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application submitted by her neighbour. We found there was no fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the way the Council decided a planning application for a neighbouring property. She complains: there was insufficient time to consider revised plans, they were not placed on the council website and consultees were not given the chance to comment again. The Council would not confirm that objections on the new plans were put before the planning committee.
the applicant provided misleading information about transport and local amenities and when considering the application false statements were made about the need for holiday accommodation.
the Council disregarded the local and national planning policy.
the Council did not recognise that an earlier application to convert a garage was only approved on the basis it was only occupied by family members and not let out to other people.
Mrs X complains that her residential amenity has been disregarded, the decision will harm the setting of a listed building and it will have a detrimental impact on wildlife.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mrs X and considered her complaint. I obtained plans and other planning documents from the Council’s website. I took account of national and local planning policy. I watched the recording of the Committee meeting on the Council’s website.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Planning All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
Applicants sometimes seek to change their plans during the planning process. The planning system allows for this. If the Council decides the changes are ‘material’, it may require some of the process steps to be repeated, for example, fresh consultation on the revisions. However, if the changes are considered ‘non‑material’ the Council may allow changes without re-consulting. In deciding this the Council should consider whether the amended proposal is still substantially the same or not, and the degree to which third parties lose the chance to make representations on revisions.
There is no statutory definition of what is or is not a non-material amendment. The question is one of fact and degree and a matter for the Council to decide.
What Happened In late 2020, Mrs X’s neighbour submitted plans to build two wooden holiday chalets on part of their garden. A planning officer visited the site in December 2020.
A conservation officer considered the chalets would not directly impact the historic significance of nearby listed buildings, but the type of structure proposed would look incongruous and out of place in the proposed location. The officer objected to the size and appearance of the chalets and their siting because they would not be read as domestic outbuildings and they would not be screened well from the road.
In Summer 2021, revised plans were submitted repositioning the proposed development. The applicants proposed to convert an existing brick-built garage to create one holiday chalet and to build a new brick-built chalet alongside it.
The conservation officer decided because of the revised siting the plan to convert a garage with only one new lodge, there would be no longer a detrimental impact to the setting around listed buildings.
A highways officer objected because they considered the development would exacerbate the risk of pedestrians being injured and because the access road did not allow two vehicles to pass. The highways officer noted comments by the planning inspectorate on previous development applications.
The applicant proposed a change to the pedestrian access to the chalets in response to the highway comments. This shortened the length of the single-track road that pedestrians had to walk down. As a result of the change, highways removed their objection.
The Council decided the application should be considered by the planning committee. Eight days before the committee date the applicant sent in further revised plans. A canopy was removed from the garage conversion and the applicant proposed that the new chalet would be wooden rather than brick-built, with a lower roof.
The case officer’s report to the committee explained the changes to the plans and the background to the application. However, the Council did not re-consult the public or consultees.
Mr and Mrs X objected to the original application and maintained an objection when the plans changed. They expressed concerns about the increase in use and safety of the single track lane and overdevelopment of the neighbouring property. They stated demand for tourist accommodation was already met in the area and the chalets proposed were not sustainable. They also considered the development would be too visible and not in keeping with the character of the area and listed buildings. They questioned how waste and drainage would be managed.
Mr and Mrs X also noted that there was farmland adjacent to the site. They were concerned about the impact to livestock from holidaymakers and how the hedgerow would be maintained as the development was close to this.
The case officer’s report to the planning committee summarised the comments and objections received about the application. It noted the Parish Council objected on the basis of highway safety, overdevelopment and because the application was not in keeping with the area.
The case officer noted the highways, environmental health and conservation officer’s responses to the original plans and revised Summer 2021 plans. The report noted that these officers did not object to the plans as they were submitted in Summer 2021.
A late report to the committee summarised further comments that had been raised about the pedestrian path proposed in Summer 2021, the highways impact and the design of the buildings. It noted the case officer’s report addressed these issues.
The case officer considered planning policies concerning tourist accommodation. and the impact the development would have on the character and appearance of the area. They found overall that the principle of development and impact was acceptable. The officer took account of a previous planning refusal for a separate dwelling on the same site. They considered that traffic from tourists would be different to that from a permanent resident. The officer noted the development would be visible, but not harmful. They also noted the roof of the new chalet had been lowered in the latest plans. The officer explained their reasoning further in the report. The officer considered there would be no impact in terms of privacy or living conditions to the nearest neighbours as they were not close enough to be affected. The officer decided impact on biodiversity would not give grounds for refusal.
The officer noted highway safety was a main concern raised by local people. The case officer’s report recognised the lane was narrow and there was no pedestrian footpath so concerns were understandable. The officer’s report stated that the addition of the pedestrian footway had reduced the extent that chalet guests would have to walk along the road. Given this, the council considered the development would not lead to significant additional harm to highway safety than existed already. The late report for the committee noted further concerns had been expressed about the safety of the gate from the pedestrian access to the lane. It stated highways officers had assessed the proposed pedestrian footpath in their consultation response and their comments had taken this into account.
The report explained the case officer’s view about the other issues raised in objections such as drainage. The officer noted the maintenance of the hedgerow along the boundary was a civil issue and not a planning consideration.
The officer recommended the application for approval. The minutes of the committee meeting show that Mr X spoke against the application at the meeting along with three others. The applicant’s agent spoke in support. The committee voted to approve the application. The specific changes made in the latest set of plans is not referred to in the case officer’s report or late report and it was not discussed at the committee meeting.
Was there fault by the Council When reaching a view on a planning application, councils must balance a number of competing priorities. They must be able to show that they have considered the amenity of local residents and the application’s adherence with local plans and guidelines. However, should they seek to refuse an application, they also need to be satisfied that there are material planning reasons for doing so which would be sustainable at appeal.
Although there was a late change to the plans in this case, I do not consider it was fault for the council to decide not to reconsult. The change of plans in summer 2021 had been put back to consultees for comments as it involved the relocation of the proposed development. The latest plans proposed relatively minor changes. This was a decision the council was entitled to make.
Although the revisions in the latest plans were not specifically referred to in the case officer’s report or late report, the latest revised plans were those provided to members ahead of the meeting, so the committee considered the application on the basis of those plans. The late report to the Committee did summarise the latest comments received.
There were clearly different opinions about some of the key issues; these were highway safety issues and the suitability and sustainability of the site. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons. Planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g. in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
The planning officer explained the planning history of the site when introducing the application to committee members. He acknowledged the previous planning approval to convert the garage was an annex associated with the main property.
Although I note the concerns raised, and disagreement about whether the application met planning policies, there was no fault in the way the Council considered the application.
Final decision
There was no fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman