Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council dealt with two planning applications for a community development near his home. There was no fault by the Council in how it considered the planning applications.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains the Council failed to properly deal with two planning applications near his home because:
• it did not publicise one application properly because its description was unclear.
• It did not properly publicise and consult regarding the planning applications and he lost the opportunity to object to them.
• It did not take action when a required tree survey was not provided.
• the Council have not taken enforcement action regarding trees that were felled.
• a councillor had a conflict of interest regarding the planning applications.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated that part of Mr B’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with two planning applications. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered documents provided by the Council, and planning documents from the Council’s website. I have also spoken to Mr B about his complaint and considered documents he provided.
7. I gave the Council and Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Planning applications for minor developments must be publicised by:
• displaying a notice in at least one place on or near the proposed development site or serving a notice on any adjoining owner or occupier; and
• publishing information on the Council website.

(Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 sections 15(5) and 15(7))

9. The Council publishes all planning applications on its website. For minor applications, the Council will send neighbour notification letters to neighbours sharing a boundary with the development site. (Lambeth Council Statement of Community Involvement)

What happened

The planning applications

10. The first planning application was for a temporary marketing suite for a local development. The second planning application was for a temporary community resource centre for the same development.

Mr B’s Complaint

11. Mr B complained the Council had failed to notify local residents of the planning application. The Council responded to Mr B and did not uphold his complaint.
12. Mr B asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the Council’s corporate complaints process. The Council did not uphold Mr B’s complaint at stage 2.

Analysis

13. The Ombudsman only looks at procedural fault in how decisions have been made and does not consider planning appeals. My investigation cannot consider the merits of the decisions reached or the professional judgement of the decision maker, provided there has not been procedural fault.

The location descriptions

14. The summary description of the location of the first planning application on the Council’s website is clear and specific. It reflects the information provided by the applicant.
15. The summary description of the location of the second planning application on the Council’s website is not clear and specific. However, information submitted by the applicant gave a specific location.
16. The documents supporting both applications also include clear plans that show the developments’ precise locations.
17. The location plans for both applications are available online to the public. The locations of the developments were not secret. I consider that the locations of both planning applications are sufficiently clear and identifiable. This was not fault by the Council.

The consultations

18. The applications were determined to be minor by the Council. The consultation required was therefore either a site notice or notices to adjoining owners.
19. I have viewed evidence from the Council that shows they have sent out neighbour consultation letters. I have not seen evidence of each individual consultation letter but the Council have confirmed in its response to my enquiries that Mr B was not included in the consultation. Mr B does not share a boundary with either of the development locations.
20. The Council have complied with the law and their Statement of Community Involvement when they have consulted about the planning applications. This was not fault by the Council.

Tree survey

21. The second planning application was granted with five conditions attached which related to trees. Two of these conditions require discharge by the Council, to confirm they have been complied with, before the development could go ahead. These were that:
• A landscaping scheme should be submitted.
• A tree protection plan should be submitted.
22. These conditions were subsequently discharged by the Council. This was not fault by the Council.

Felling of a tree on an application site

23. Mr B also complained about the felling of a tree that had not been permitted on one of the application sites.
24. The Council approved an Arboricultural Method Statement relating to the applications. This included a diagram showing which existing trees were to be retained, and which were proposed to be felled.
25. In considering this, I have analysed a photograph from Mr B. I am content that the tree in question is marked as being to be removed according to the tree retention strategy approved by the Council, because of street furniture and the branches of another tree that can be seen in the photograph. This was not fault by the Council.

Final decision

26. The Council is not at fault in the way it has handled the planning applications. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

27. I have not investigated any incidences of trees that Mr B says were improperly felled, outside the planning applications referred to, because they occurred too long ago. I have not investigated Mr B’s concerns about a conflict of interest because he says the Council’s monitoring officer has already considered this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman