Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning committee’s decision to grant planning permission for a development next to his home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way officers recommended approval, or in the committee’s grant of the permission, to warrant our investigation. Even if it were fault by the Council in not notifying Mr X of the planning committee meeting, there is insufficient evidence that Mr X giving his objections at the meeting would have resulted in a different planning outcome. The size or standard of the new development’s accommodation is not a personal injustice to Mr X. We cannot achieve the key outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a property which received planning permission. He complains the Council:
1. failed to notify him of the planning committee meeting which determined the application;
2. improperly granted planning permission for what he considers to be a sub‑standard building.
2. Mr X says he lost the opportunity to object to the application at the meeting because the Council did not notify him of the date. He says the planning decision has caused him distress. Mr X considers the demolition and development will cause further distress, upset and inconvenience. He considers the rooms in the proposed flats are too small, and the plot size and location are not sufficient to support a building of the size which has been permitted. He says he may have future financial loss from the need for a structural survey on his property, due to possible damage caused to it by the development.
3. Mr X wants the planning consent withdrawn, and the planning committee and planning department to be censured, to avoid similar future errors.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault; or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X says there was no public planning committee meeting due to COVID-19 restrictions, so he ‘did not get the opportunity to verbally state’ his objections to the committee. Mr X also says he lost his opportunity to present his objections to the planning committee because the Council failed to notify him of its date.
8. The committee meeting was held in public using an online meeting system. The Council says its notification letter advises people it will not inform all residents of committee dates. It says residents who specifically asked to be notified of the meeting were given that information. The Council is considering how it can add meeting notifications to its software so people who sign up to the notification service get advised of committee dates.
9. Mr X lodged written objections to the application. The Council’s officers and planning committee Members had all objections before them as they were reflected in the officer’s planning report. Even if we were to find it was fault for the Council not to notify Mr X of the online planning meeting, we cannot say that Mr X’s in-person online objections would have resulted in a different outcome. There are no grounds for us to pursue this matter further.
10. We can only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process which, were it not for that fault, would have led to a different decision.
11. In writing the planning report for the committee, officers took account of the relevant information in reaching their decision to recommend permission should be granted. They visited the site and viewed the plans to assess whether the development would have such impacts on existing properties to make the proposals unacceptable in planning terms. They noted the reductions in scale of the permitted proposal as compared to earlier schemes. Officers took account of objections received and gave their reasons why they did not give grounds to refuse the application.
12. The committee then considered the matter and voted in line with the officers’ recommendation by approving the development. Had they disagreed with the officers’ view, they could have refused the permission and given their planning reasons for that differing decision.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council’s officers or the committee’s elected Members during the planning process to warrant our investigation. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council officers’ support for the application and with the planning committee’s decision to grant the permission. But it is not fault for a Council or elected Members to properly make decisions or hold opinions with which someone disagrees.
14. Mr X considers the Council should have refused the permission because of the Town Council’s objections to the scheme. He describes this as the Town Council ‘refusing’ the application. But the Town Council is a planning consultee. It cannot grant or refuse planning applications. That power resides with Fylde Borough Council. It is the local planning authority (LPA), the decision‑maker on planning applications in its area.
15. The Council acting as the LPA has a duty to take account of the Town Council’s views on applications. It does not have a duty to agree with them, or with the views of any other consultee. The planning report sets out the Town Council’s objections and explains why officers did not consider they gave grounds to refuse the application. It was not fault for the officers to do this and reach their own opinions on the application.
16. Mr X says his main concern is that the committee granted permission for a development which would not meet the required national standards for room sizes and provision of amenities. The Council’s officers and the planning committee Members are satisfied the development does comply with the relevant standards. But even if Mr X is correct, this would not give us grounds to investigate. This is because where we receive a complaint from an individual, complaining on their own behalf, we must consider how the matter causes them a significant personal injustice. The size or standard of the accommodation in the new development is not a personal injustice to Mr X as he will not be living there. Any defect in the accommodation would be an injustice to the development’s future residents, and Mr X does not have standing to complain on their behalf.
17. I note Mr X is concerned about disturbance from the new development. Some disturbance is inevitable while a development is built. But that temporary disruption is rarely so significant as to give firm grounds for the refusal of a permission. Councils will normally apply conditions to restrict working times and processes, to reduce the development works’ impact. The Council has done this here with a condition on the permission requiring the developer to submit a ‘Construction Method Statement’, to be approved by the Council before the development starts. If Mr X considers the developer is not complying with the finalised Statement, he should report any claimed breaches to the Council. It would then be for officers to decide how to respond.
18. Mr X has concerns about damage to his own property by the development. If the actions of the developer damage Mr X’s property, that would be a private civil matter between him and the developer. Any actions of the developer which cause damage to others’ property would not be fault by the Council.
19. The key outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is for the planning permission to be revoked. We cannot order a council to revoke a planning permission. That we cannot achieve this outcome for Mr X is a further reason why we will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is insufficient evidence to say Mr X not making his objections at the virtual committee meeting would have resulted in a different planning outcome;
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way officers recommended approval, or in the committee’s grant of the permission, to warrant our investigation;
• the size or standard of the accommodation in the new development is not a personal injustice to Mr X;
• we cannot achieve the key outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman