Summary: We found no fault in how the Council publicised a planning application for development near Mrs X’s home.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council did not properly handle a planning application for development near her home because:

• it used incomplete site notices to publicise the development;
• it reduced the time for objections when publicising changes to the development; and
• problems with its website made objecting difficult and objections disappeared from the website.

2. Mrs X said what happened caused her much time, trouble and stress. Mrs X also said construction traffic for the development might damage her home.
3. Mrs X wanted the Council to prevent construction traffic using the track next to her home and review its planning department and how officers communicated with the public.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I:

• considered Mrs X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mrs X about the complaint;
• considered information about the development available on the Council’s website;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting papers on the complaint;
• shared the Council’s response with Mrs X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mrs X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. The law says councils must publicise planning applications, so people may comment on development proposals. The publicity needed depends on the development proposed and policies in the council’s statement of community involvement (SCI). But councils must publish all applications on their websites. Here, the application near Mrs X’s home was ‘minor development’ and so the Council also needed to publicise it by either:

• displaying, for not less than 21 days, a site notice in at least one place on or near the application site; or
• sending a letter to the owner/occupier of properties adjoining the application site and giving them 21 days to comment on the development.

9. The Council’s SCI reflects the law by saying it will display site notices and or send letters to properties sharing a boundary with the application site. The SCI also says where development proposals may have a significant impact on neighbours, it may also send letters to other properties close by or display extra site notices. The application case officer decides whether to send letters and to whom. The Council’s SCI also says it will consider representations received after 21 days where an application remains undecided.
10. Planning applicants may change their development proposals before the council decides their application. Sometimes applicants make changes to try to overcome peoples’ objections to the publicised development. Councils do not need to publicise changes but have discretion to do so. The Government’s planning practice guidance (PPG) says councils should decide whether further publicity is necessary “in the interests of fairness”.
11. Here, the Council’s SCI refers to applicants changing proposals to overcome peoples’ objections. The SCI says further publicising minor changes can significantly delay a decision on an application. A senior Council planning officer will decide whether to publicise such changes. The SCI says more significant changes will need further publicity and the Council will give people at least seven working days to comment.

What happened

12. The Council received a planning application for ‘minor development’ shortly before the first COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ in March 2020. Mrs X’s home was near to but did not adjoin the application site. In line with the law and its SCI, the Council sent letters to properties adjoining the site seeking comments within 21 days. Mrs X did not therefore receive a letter about the development.
13. The Council said that, following COVID-19 restrictions in March 2020, it was about two months before it also erected site notices about the development. The Council said the COVID-19 restrictions meant its officers were not in the office and so did not have access to printed and laminated site notices. Officers completed site notices by hand, in ink, placing them in plastic covers. Here, an officer put up two such notices about the development along a road next to the application site. The Council provided copy photographs showing site notices, with handwritten information, on display along the road. The Council also provided the names of nine people it said commented on the development in the month after its officer put up the site notices.
14. Three months later, Mrs X found out about the proposed development from a neighbour. Mrs X used the Council’s website to object and noticed there were many other objections to the development.
15. About two months later, the Council updated its planning website. The Council said before the update, its website did not display the detailed representations, but a running tally of the number received. On changing the website, the number of representations previously received did not pull through or therefore appear in the total number of representations displayed on the website. But the previous objections remained available to its planning officers. The Council then found a problem with the update, which led to some people facing problems objecting online to planning applications. While resolving the problem the Council removed representations made on planning applications since introducing the update. The Council published information on its website apologising for any inconvenience caused by problems using its online planning system. The website also gave an email link for people to use for advice and to make comments on an application.
16. The planning applicant changed their proposals, reducing the scale of the development near Mrs X’s home. The Council said it decided to publicise the changes and considered 14 days for comments was appropriate. A Council planning officer put up two notices near the application site but in different places to the two original notices. The officer did not remove the original notices during the visit.
17. A few days later, Mrs X walked along the road with the original site notices from six months earlier. Mrs X said she had not walked along that road during the previous six months. Mrs X took photographs of two of the Council’s planning notices. The photographs showed the notices had ‘blank gaps’ where there should have been details of the development and the response date for comments. Mrs X contacted the Council about the notices being ineffective and asking how people could comment on proposals without relevant information.
18. Mrs X also noticed that her, and other objections, to the development were no longer shown on the Council’s website. Mrs X faced problems trying to make a further objection to the development using the Council’s website. Mrs X therefore emailed a second objection to the Council and resubmitted her original objection to the proposed development. The Council also received emails from other people finding problems making objections to the development using the website.
19. The Council then sent out letters publicising the changed development proposals. It sent letters to properties adjoining the application site and to people that had previously made representations about the development, including Mrs X. The letters gave people 14 days to comment. Mrs X made further representations about the development and a formal complaint.
20. Mrs X’s complaint covered her publicity concerns, including problems with the Council’s website; removal of objections from the website; ‘blank’ site notices; and the reduced 14 days to object to the changed proposals. In response the Council agreed there had been problems with its website but opportunities for people to comment exceeded legal and SCI requirements. It kept all representations on the development (about 30), which it would consider in deciding the application. Its photographs showed the site notices were not blank when displayed but affected by moisture over the last six months. And, giving 14 days to comment on changes to the proposals was proportionate and reasonable. The Council also said it did not decide the application, granting conditional planning permission, until six weeks after the date for comments on the changed proposals.

Consideration

Introduction

21. My role was to consider whether there was evidence the Council acted with fault and, if so, whether that caused Mrs X significant personal injustice. I have carefully considered all the information provided by Mrs X and the Council. However, I have not found it necessary, and this statement does not, address every point raised in their correspondence about the planning application. My focus was the three issues set out at paragraph 1 of this statement.

The ‘blank’ site notices

22. Mrs X understood from a neighbour the Council had put up new site notices about changes to the development. She then saw ‘blank’ notices on a road near the application site. Mrs X’s distress at seeing such notices was understandable. However, the evidence showed the notices Mrs X saw were not those recently put up to publicise changes to the development. Rather, they were the notices put up about six months earlier to publicise the original proposals.
23. The evidence showed the original notices, as photographed by Mrs X, had included handwritten information about the development. There was also evidence the Council received several representations about the development in the month after it placed the original notices along the road. I did not know how people making those representations became aware of the application. However, on balance, it was likely at least some of them became aware having seen the original the site notices.
24. The Council also provided evidence of the site notices it said it put up near the application site to publicise changes to the proposed development. Using both letters to some residents and site notices, led to the Council receiving many representations about the development. And Mrs X made objections to both the original and changed proposals, which objections the Council considered in deciding the application. It was regrettable the Council did not remove the original notices when it put up the notices about changes to the proposals. If it had done so, Mrs X would not have seen the original notices and so become concerned about them. However, as the evidence did not show the Council put up ‘blank’ notices, I did not find fault here.

The time for comments on the changed proposals

25. The Council did not have to publicise the changes to the proposed development. But it decided to use its discretion to do so. It then had to decide how long it would give people to comment. Here, the Council gave 14 days, which was longer than the minimum seven working days set out in its SCI. I therefore found no fault here.

Website issues

26. The Council updated its planning website while it was considering the application and between publicising the original and changed proposals. Unfortunately, this change affected both existing and later planning representations. Firstly, it seemed representations about the original proposals had disappeared. Secondly, problems with the new website led to some people facing problems objecting online to the changed proposals.
27. I recognised Mrs X’s concern the Council’s website did not show the number of objections received before the website update. However, the Council kept peoples’ original objections, including that from Mrs X, although they were not visible on the website. The Council took suitable action in explaining to Mrs X what had happened to the objections, and why, and sought to assure her it would consider them in deciding the application. The Council’s report assessing the application showed it took account of objections to both the original and changed development proposals in deciding the application. I therefore found no fault here.
28. Mrs X and some other residents had problems using the Council’s website to object to the changed proposals. I recognised problems using the website might have been frustrating. However, the Council’s letter inviting comments on the changes referred to sending comments by email or letter if people could not access the website. The Council also published an apology on its website and provided an email link for people to use to comment on proposals. These were appropriate steps for the Council to take to ensure people could object to development proposals despite problems with its website. I therefore found no fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I completed my investigation finding no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman