The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decision-making process on two applications for new developments near a Grade I Listed property. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered residents’ objections to the developments, or in how it dealt with possible restrictions on the car park land’s use, to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.
The complaint
Mr X lives near land containing a Grade I Listed building and gardens. The owners sought planning permission for a development on the site, to include a car park on land behind Mr X’s house, and a new hotel.
Mr X complains the Council: completely ignored the views of over 100 residents when granting planning permission for the development; failed to take into account the deeds for the proposed car park land, which he says only allow agricultural or garden uses.
Mr X says most residents are appalled at the car park development. He says it will cause noise and air pollution, and result in an ugly car park where there have always been green fields. Mr X wants the Council to reverse its planning decisions.
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; or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council invited residents’ and other consultees’ comments on the applications during the normal planning consultation process. Officers summarised the comments within the planning report to the relevant committee, which is the usual planning process where comments are received. The report then set out officers’ consideration of the material planning matters raised. They took the view that none of those material issues gave them planning grounds to refuse the applications.
The officers’ planning reports demonstrate they did not ignore the residents’ comments they received as claimed. Not agreeing that the objections gave the Council sufficient material planning reason to refuse the applications is not the same as ignoring them. There is not enough evidence of this alleged fault to warrant an investigation.
We can only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the process followed which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of such fault in the Council’s process on the issues raised to justify investigating. I recognise Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decisions to grant the permissions. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
Mr X says the Council failed to take into account the deeds for the proposed car park land, which he says only allow agricultural or garden land uses. The Council is the local planning authority. It must make its decisions using material planning matters. The terms of the land’s deeds, or any covenant restricting a particular use of the land, is not a material planning issue which falls to a planning authority to enforce or consider. Restrictive deed terms or covenants would be matters between the parties who are signatories to them, which does not include the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council not taking account of any covenant or land deed restriction on the use of the car park land when dealing with that planning application to warrant investigation. If Mr X believes the planning applicants or land’s owners are prevented from proceeding with the development by such a restriction on land use, he may wish to seek independent legal advice if he intends to pursue this issue.
We also cannot order the Council to reverse or revoke its planning decisions, so cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint. This is a further reason why we will not investigate here.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of objections and material planning issues to warrant an investigation; we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman