Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council’s officers dealt with a planning application for a development in his area. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process to warrant investigation. The Council refused the permission sought so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the Council’s processing of and decision on the planning application to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a site where a planning applicant sought permission to install a sports facility. He complains the Council:
1. worked too closely with the applicant;
2. ignored all professional reports and evidence provided by local residents;
3. wrongly produced a report recommending approval for the scheme which the planning Committee refused;
4. submitted a statement as part of the applicant’s Planning Inspectorate appeal which supported the Committee’s refusal, which confirms officers previously breached their code of conduct when recommending its approval.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him stress and significant concern and he has spent time and been caused trouble by objecting to the scheme.
3. He wants the Council to:
• run an independent investigation into the entire planning process and linked events and take the corrective action required;
• apologise to residents;
• work with the planning applicant to identify a different location for their scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. There are two stages in the planning process about which Mr X complains. The first stage was the Council planning officers’ assessment of the application, resulting in their report to the planning committee which recommended approval of the development. The second stage was the planning officers’ submission to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the applicant’s appeal against the committee’s decision to refuse the permission.
8. Mr X says the Council worked too closely with the applicant in the first stages of the planning process. Councils are required by national planning guidance to communicate with applicants on proposed and submitted schemes during the planning process. They may for example discuss and seek to resolve concerns about developments before an application is lodged, or while they are assessing a valid application they have received. Mr X’s view that this contact was excessive or somehow wrong is a subjective assessment, made from the position of an objector. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way officers worked with the applicant here to warrant an investigation. In any event, even if there was fault on this issue, the Council’s planning committee refused the application. So the planning outcome Mr X wanted at Council level was achieved. There would be no other worthwhile outcome an investigation of this issue would achieve so we will not investigate it.
9. Mr X says that officers produced an incorrect report to the committee and ignored all professional reports and evidence from local residents. The planning officer’s report summarised the local residents’ objections and responded to the material planning issues they raised. The officer consulted with the Council’s highways and environmental health departments which did not object to the scheme. The planning officer took the view that there were insufficient grounds to refuse the permission and recommended to the committee that it should be granted.
10. We consider the processes councils have followed to make a planning recommendation. We cannot replace a council’s view with our own or someone else’s opinion if the view has been reached after following proper process. Officers gathered relevant information to inform the report to committee and make their recommendation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council officers’ decision-making process here to warrant investigation. We recognise Mr X disagreed with the officer’s recommendation. But it is not fault for a Council’s officers to properly reach a view with which someone disagrees, including Members of a planning committee. Furthermore, and as with the issue above, even if there was fault on this issue, the Council refused the application. The planning outcome Mr X wanted was achieved and investigation of this part of the process would achieve no other worthwhile outcome, so we will not do so.
11. Once the Council’s planning committee refused the permission, the application entered the second stage. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decision, which is an ongoing process. The appeal process required the Council to send its own statement to the Inspectorate in response. Officers submitted a statement as part of the applicant’s Planning Inspectorate appeal which supported the Committee’s refusal decision. Mr X considers this confirms planning and highways officers were previously at fault and breached the code of conduct when recommending the development’s approval in their report.
12. The planning committee was the body responsible for making the Council’s decision on the application here, not officers. The committee’s Members disagreed with the officer’s recommendation and refused the application, which they were entitled to do. Once the committee made the decision, that decision was the position of the entire Council on the application, not just the committee’s. When the applicant appealed, it fell to officers, not the committee, to make the Council’s case to the Inspectorate, based on the refusal reasons given by the committee. It was not fault for officers to do so. This is what the planning process requires them to do. It was also not an admission of fault in their report to committee. Differences of opinion about the acceptability of applications between planning officers and committees are part of the planning process and do not amount to fault. It is now for the Planning Inspectorate to consider and determine the applicant’s appeal. We cannot be involved in or influence the Inspectorate’s process or decision.
13. We note Mr X says he has been caused stress and trouble and spent time in objecting to the development. But even if officers had dealt with the application in a way he found more acceptable and recommended its refusal, it is likely he would still have been involved with other objectors in seeking to prevent the development going ahead, and would have been anxious about the matter. It was the making of the application for a development which caused Mr X concerns, not the processing of it, which primarily led to his claimed injustices of stress and time and trouble. There is no injustice to him from the planning outcome because the Council refused the permission.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process to warrant investigation; and
• even if there were such fault, the Council refused the permission sought so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the Council’s processing of and decision on the planning application to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman