Summary: Mr X says the Council has colluded with a former councillor to frustrate his planning applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and Mr X has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, says the Council colluded with a former councillor to frustrate his planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the information on the planning pages of the Council’s website.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X lives close to a former member of the Council. To reach an agreement with neighbours, he contacted her to discuss his plans for a stable block before he put in a planning application. In an email to his neighbour Mr X says it would be helpful to review the matter with a planning officer with a view to submitting a plan which incorporated her suggestions and those of the planner.
5. The former councillor contacted a planning officer for his thoughts. The officer said he thought the proposal was too large.
6. In December, Mr X put in an application to replace temporary stables with a new stable block. He says the Council put up three site notices.
7. The case officer visited the site and prepared a report on the proposal. He included a summary of the objections received from the parish council and an elected councillor – he also noted five other objections had been received.
8. The report details the relevant planning policies and material planning considerations. The officer explained why he considered the proposal overcame the objections received. He recommended the application for approval. In February, the Council agreed and granted full planning permission.
9. I note Mr X’s concerns about the number of site notices, and the discussions between the planning officer and the former councillor. However, the law requires the Council to display a site notice in at least one place for not less than 21 days. The purpose of a site notice is to ensure the public are aware of the proposed plans. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to erect three site notices.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about the processing of this planning application. He received full planning permission; therefore, I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
11. In April, Mr X put in a planning application for an agricultural building. He says the Council extended the consultation period for this proposal from 21 days to 38 days without his agreement.
12. The Council says the application was made valid in April and a decision was due within eight weeks. Due to the restrictions because of the Coronavirus outbreak no planning application consultations were taking place and officers could not make site visits or post site notices. Because of this, the Council could not decide on the application within eight weeks.
13. In May, the Council allowed officers to volunteer to post site notices in their area. A site notice for Mr X’s application was posted; the consultation period was due to expire mid-June. However, the case officer was not told that a site notice had been posted. Therefore, to ensure the application had been publicised correctly, a new site notice was posted in June, again with a 21-day consultation period.
14. I understand Mr X is concerned the consultation period ran for an extended period. However, at the time of writing this decision statement, the application is yet to be decided. Mr X has therefore the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination.
15. Because Mr X has a right of appeal this part of his complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. I have considered if I should exercise the discretion open to me to investigate the complaint even though Mr X had this right of appeal.
16. From the information I have seen, Mr X approached his neighbour about a planning proposal, and she contacted the Council to ask for an informal view. Pre application advice is a service which the Council charges for. However, the former councillor was not seeking pre-application advice as she was not making the application, Mr X was and ultimately, he received the planning permission he sought.
17. Mr X’s current application is live. The Council has explained why it extended the consultation period. I have not seen any evidence to suggest a conspiracy to frustrate his planning applications and it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions. I therefore consider it reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspector if he is concerned about the non-determination of his application.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. And Mr X has the right to appeal to the planning Inspector about the non-determination of his current application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman