Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to change the use of a building from residential to supported accommodation. Mr X said this will reduce the value of his home, will impact on his family and the community, and fears anti-social behaviour from the residents. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to change the use of a building from residential to supported accommodation. He said the Council ignored its own policy, and the planning committee did not have all the facts to make its decision.
2. Mr X said this will reduce the value of his home. He said it will impact on his family and the community, and fears anti-social behaviour from the residents.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

What happened

11. There was a planning application to change the use of a building from residential to supported accommodation. This building is near Mr X’s home. Mr X objected to the application.
12. The Council decided that the application needed to be decided by its planning committee. The planning committee visited the site. There were several planning committee meetings. Mr X spoke at one of these meetings, telling the planning committee his objections to the proposal.
13. The planning committee decided to approve the application.
14. Mr X complained. He said the application was not in line with one of the Council’s policies.
15. The Council said that planning applications do not have to be in line with every single policy. It said decisions should be made having regard to the relevant policies when taken as a whole. It said it does not refuse an application just because it does not comply with every policy.
16. The Council said its presenting officer told the planning committee that even though this application was not in line with one of its policies, it was in line with another policy and in line with the development plan as a whole. It said the planning committee had all the information in front of it to make its decision.
17. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

18. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to change the use of a building from residential to supported accommodation. He said the Council ignored its own policy, and the planning committee did not have all the facts to make its decision.
19. Planning policies and material planning considerations may pull in different directions, for example, supporting new housing and protecting existing residential amenities. While councils must take account of relevant policies and material planning issues, they may give competing considerations different weight. In practice, this means councils may grant planning permission for a development that does not comply with all relevant planning policies.
20. Policies and the supplementary planning document must be taken into account but are not to be treated as if they create binding rules.
21. The Ombudsman considers whether the decision-makers had enough information in front of them to make an informed decision.
22. I find the Council considered all the relevant policies. The Case Officer was clear that while the proposal was not in line with one particular policy, it was in line with another policy and the development plan as a whole.
23. The Council is entitled to decide to approve a planning application that does not comply with all of its policies. I find the planning committee was told that the application did not comply with a particular Council policy. The planning committee decided to approve the application. It did this based on all the information it had in front of it, and having heard Mr X’s objections. The planning committee was entitled to make that decision.
24. I therefore find no fault with how the Council decided this planning application. Mr X may not like the outcome, but this is not evidence of fault.
25. Mr X complained that the minutes of a planning committee meeting were not a full record of what was said. Mr X said the minutes do not show the questions he asked and that a committee member asked the Case Officer to answer all of Mr X’s questions.
26. The Council addressed this in its complaint response. It said planning committee minutes were not intended to record everything that was said. It said its presenting officer responded to the committee member’s request to respond to “everything” by giving an overview. The Council said it may not have been as detailed as Mr X wanted, but the committee had all the information in front of it to make its decision.
27. I agree with the Council. I therefore do not find fault here.
28. Mr X commented that the description of the property would be better described as a house in multiple occupancy (an HMO). I find no fault in the Council’s description.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman