Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council manages and organises planning documents and that it held the planning committee meeting to consider an application on the day of the expiry of the consultation. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely an investigation will add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council’s management, organisation and description and dates of documents on its planning website make it very difficult to participate properly in public consultation. He also says the Council’s Planning Committee considered an application before the end of the consultation period had expired, later that same day.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about various difficulties he had in trying to go through documents placed on its website for a planning application he wished to comment on.
7. The Council recognised that large scale major planning applications in particular pose problems in how it organises and manages the documents associated with the application when they are large in number and likely to be superseded or amended. It accepted there had been failings on its part and that it aimed to address some of the problems with tighter version control and the consistent naming of documents. However, it also explained that it, along with a large number of other local authorities, use a public access portal which has limitations, over which the Council has no control. It acknowledged the display of documents for larger complex planning applications does not meet customer expectations in terms of clarity, viewing and locating documents but that it would look carefully at changes it could make to improve the situation.
8. With regard to the issue raised by Mr X that the meeting had taken place before the expiry of the consultation, the Council said the date of the meeting was not the date of the decision and that he had been aware of the meeting and had had the opportunity to send in his representations.
9. While I understand Mr X’s frustrations, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome. He has drawn attention to a number of issues of document management and organisation which the Council has confirmed it can and will address. I am not aware of any issue which was not brought to the Council’s attention due to the timing of the meeting taking place prior to the expiry of the consultation period.
10. Mr X responded to my draft decision, highlighting the areas he remains dissatisfied with and noting that the Council had not addressed the initial cause of his complaint which concerned documents listed in the notification letter not matching what was available to the public on the website database. He also says comments were made within the consultation deadline but after the meeting took place.
11. It is accepted by those using the existing portal system that it is not perfect and that managing documents on it for large, complex applications is particularly difficult. The Council accepted that in this case there had been failings on its part which it would address with tighter version control and consistent descriptions but acknowledged that this would not solve all the problems. It is the case that those wishing to follow and comment on these types of applications do have to spend time and trouble to do so.
12. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome. Mr X says he wants the Council to re-run the consultation but given the application had already been subject to various stages of consultation and it has not been said that any issue which went to the heart of the decision to grant permission had been missed, it is unlikely we could conclude, but for any fault, the outcome would have been different.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation will add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman