Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process followed by the Council when deciding to approve a planning application. And about failure in the way it considered the subsequent complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in by the Council to justify an investigation. Nor would further investigation lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council:
• allowed a planning applicant and their agent to contribute to discussions with Councillors during a planning application site visit
• failed to ensure councillors visited neighbouring properties to view the application site
• omitted and misrepresented facts during planning meetings; and
• failed to follow its constitution during planning meetings.
2. He also has concerns about the way the Council considered his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Local Planning Authorities must make their decisions on planning applications according to their development plans unless material considerations suggest otherwise.
7. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise.
8. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded on valid material planning reasons.
9. There is no obligation on Council officers or planning committees to visit sites before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using ariel photographs and other tools such as Google Street View.
10. Mr X complains a planning applicant and agent took part in discussions with councillors during a site visit.
11. The Council’s good practice guide allows applicants and agents to attend site visits. It states “members must not discuss the merits of the case at the site visit with any applicants, agents, objectors (or supporters) or members who are present. The site visit is not part of the formal consideration of the application and public rights of attendance do not apply.”
12. The Council confirms the applicant and agents answered factual questions from councillors during the meeting. I have seen no evidence to show they discussed the merits of the application. Therefore, I consider further investigation on this point is unlikely to find fault.
13. I have watched a recording of the Planning Committee meeting which is available online. The Committee heard the presentation of the application. It heard from people for the application and those against, including Mr X.
14. Members debated the proposal before voting. The voting process was followed correctly. A proposal to approve failed. A proposal to refuse failed. A final proposal to approve was carried. Officers responded to questions when asked and gave advice when requested.
15. Mr X complains there were errors in the Planning Officer’s report on the proposal and misrepresentation by officers during the Committee meeting. The Council recognised at the meeting there was a minor error in the report, however, this was corrected verbally. Following questions by Members, officers sought to clarify a point on how the applicant was going to raise the internal roof height of the property without raising the external height. The meeting adjourned briefly while the planning officer contacted the applicant’s agent to obtain this information.
16. From the information I have seen I am satisfied the Committee Members were clear on the proposal before voting to approve the application. They were also aware of the planning history of the site including decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate.
17. Mr X is also concerned about the way the Council dealt with his complaint. The Council’s complaint policy states:

“We operate a one stage complaints procedure. Your complaint will be investigated by either an officer within the relevant department or by the Information Governance Team. Your complaint will be investigated by either a Complaint Investigation Officer or by a Senior Officer within the department. When a complaint is investigated by a Senior Officer within the department, the Information Compliance Team will then review the investigation and respond to you. A complaint investigation should take no longer than 20 working days, however, if the complaint is complex in nature then this may be extended to 30 working days. We will advise you of any extension to the deadline.”

18. Mr X’s complaint was investigated by the Director of Planning, Housing and Climate Emergency, and the Council Solicitor. It was reviewed by a complaint investigation officer in the Information Governance Team. This accords with the Council’s published policy.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. And further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman