The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration and determination of a planning application. From the information we have seen we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor has the complainant suffered enough injustice because of a failure to respond to some of his emails to justify an investigation on this point.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr B, says the Council ignored objections from residents and the local town council when it approved a planning application for a housing development on land behind his home. He also complains the Council failed to respond to his emails.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
All decisions on planning applications must be made according to the Council’s local development plan unless material considerations suggest otherwise.
Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest, and not 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.
Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on valid material planning reasons. General planning policies may pull in different directions for example 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.
Mr B complains the Council ignored the objections from residents and the town council. I disagree. The planning officer’s report includes a summary of the comments and objections received on the proposal. The planning officer details the relevant national and local policies and explains why they consider the proposal is acceptable.
Mr B specifically say the Council has allowed an increase in housing density on the site from 105 to 187. However, the report confirms the increase in housing numbers across the entire allocated site was accepted during approval of an outline application for a bordering parcel of land, subject to there being no material harm arising from the increase.
The planning officer confirms the proposed scheme provides enough space to ensure room for landscaping and ecology. It also provides: more than the required amount of public space for residents sufficient sized gardens minimum parking standards for each property The report also notes the scale and layout of the scheme.
The planning officer concluded the application was acceptable and recommended approval.
The Planning Committee minutes show three residents and two Town Councillors spoke in objection to the application. Committee Members discussed the proposal, specifically asking about the increase in the number of homes across the site. The planning officer confirmed the Committee had considered the increase in numbers when the first application for the wider site was approved in 2020. Members found the increase did not cause any harm in planning terms, and there were no sound reasons for refusing the application. The Officer also referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The NPPF states: “Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site.”
At the time of deciding the planning application, the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing supply.
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 an organisation 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision.
I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after: consideration of local and national planning polices comments from statutory consultees; and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council ignored the views of residents and the Town Council. The objections were considered, however the Council decided that on balance, the application was acceptable.
Mr B also complains the Council failed to respond to some of his emails. The Council acknowledges it did not respond to some of Mr B’s emails. It has apologised for this. While we would expect the Council to respond to customer contact, I do not propose to investigate this issue further . We do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to Mr B because of the failure to respond to some of his emails alone, to warrant our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. Nor has he been caused sufficient injustice because of a failure to respond to some of his emails to justify an investigation on this point.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman