Summary: Mr and Mrs X say the Council did not adhere to statutory requirements governing planning applications. There was fault by the Council because of an error on its decision notice. However, this fault did not cause Mr and Mrs X or other residents significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain on their behalf as well as that of other named residents. Mr and Mrs X say the Council did not adhere to statutory requirements governing planning applications. They say:
• The Council failed to notify residents of an amendment to a planning application and so deprived them of an opportunity to make representations on the amendment.
• The amendment was dated 29 July 2019 and the decision date was 31 July and so the planning decision on the amended plans was carried out with excessive urgency. The amendment was not a small amendment but a change in the number of bedrooms and square metre area which took the proposal back to virtually the same application as one previously refused planning permission.
• The planning application should have been set before the planning committee because the application was controversial.
• A council officer gave incorrect advice to a resident regarding the number of objections required to have a full planning meeting. The officer also failed to advise residents of their statutory rights to have a councillor representation.
• The Council’s decision notice on the application is contradictory and does not inform the reader as to what has been passed. The notice states planning permission has been granted for a three bedroom chalet bungalow whereas the revised plans state the proposal is for a two bedroom bungalow.

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)

3. 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

4. I reviewed the complaint and background information provided by Mr and Mrs X. I considered the details of the planning application on the Council’s website. I considered the Council’s constitution. I discussed matters with Mrs X by telephone.
5. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr and Mrs X and the Council and invited their comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council received a planning application which proposed the erection of a three bedroom chalet bungalow with parking. The Council had previously refused planning permission for a similar proposal and the applicant had appealed unsuccessfully.
7. Mr and Mrs X and other neighbours were notified of the application. They made representations against the proposal.
8. The applicant then proposed amendments to the application. The amended plans involved lowering of the overall height of the proposed building; a reduction of the building’s bulk and its roof; and removal of a floor of accommodation. A flat roof car port was added to the scheme.
9. Where an application is amended the law says it is up to the local planning authority to decide whether further publicity and consultation is necessary in the interests of fairness. In deciding what further steps may be required local planning authorities are required to consider whether, without re-consultation, any of those who were entitled to be consulted on the application would be deprived of the opportunity to make any representations that they may have wanted to make on the application as amended.
10. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement leaves the matter of publicity for amended applications up to officer discretion. It advises that officers will be guided by whether the proposed changes would have a significant impact when compared to the original proposals.
11. In this case, the planning officer decided not to re-publicise the amendments. The application was determined through delegated powers.
12. The case officer’s report summarised the comments from Mr and Mrs X and other neighbours. The report set out the site’s planning history and explained the changes to the proposed scheme compared to the proposal previously refused planning permission. The report noted the Council’s reasons for refusal as well as the Planning Inspector’s reasons for refusal. The report explained why the officer considered the new application overcame those reasons for refusal.
13. The report addressed the proposal’s impact on neighbouring amenity; parking provision; highway safety, trees; and the character of the area.

Finding

The Council failed to notify residents of an amendment to a planning application and so deprived them of an opportunity to make representations on the amendment

14. The Council was not statutorily required to publicise the amendments. I have considered whether the Council should have done so in the interests of fairness. Given that the changes in this case did not materially change the proposal, I do not find that Mr and Mrs X as well as others would have made representations that would have been different from those they already made. I do not therefore find there was a compelling reason for the Council to have republicised the application in the interests of fairness.

The amendment was dated 29 July 2019 and the decision date was 31 July and so the planning decision on the amended plans was carried out with excessive urgency. The amendment was not a small amendment but a change in the number of bedrooms and square metre area which took the proposal back to virtually the same application as one previously refused planning permission.

15. The amended plans were dated 29 July when published on the Council’s website. However, the plans were received by the Council at an earlier date.
16. The publication date led Mr and Mrs X to erroneously believe the plans were received two days before the decision date. The decision was not carried out with excessive urgency.
17. The amended plans reduced the square footage of the proposal when compared to the scheme which was refused planning permission.

The planning application should have been set before the planning committee because the application was controversial

18. The Council explained its scheme of delegation to the complainants. Nonetheless, Mr and Mrs X are adamant the application should have been referred to the planning committee because it was controversial. They also say a local councillor had asked for the previously refused application to be referred to the committee if officers were minded to approve it. They say that was a precedent the Council should have followed.
19. The application did not meet the criteria for referral to the planning committee. The Council’s constitution also does not provide for precedents to be followed when councillors make referral requests to the planning committee.

A council officer gave incorrect advice to a resident regarding the number of objections required to have a full planning meeting. The officer also failed to advise residents of their statutory rights to have a councillor representation

20. There is no record of the conversation between the officer alleged to have given incorrect advice and residents. So, this investigation cannot establish the material facts necessary to come to a conclusion on whether there was fault by the Council here.

The Council’s decision notice on the application is contradictory and does not inform the reader as to what has been passed. The notice states planning permission has been granted for a three bedroom chalet bungalow whereas the revised plans state the proposal is for a two bedroom bungalow

21. The Council’s decision notice erroneously stated permission had been granted for a three bedroom chalet bungalow whereas the amended plans changed the proposal to a two bedroom bungalow. The Council subsequently wrote to the applicant to advise the applicant of the error on the decision notice. However, the approved plans denoted the correct size of the development.
22. There was fault by the Council on this point. However, I do not find this failing caused Mr and Mrs X and the other complainants an injustice that warrants further pursuit of this matter by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was fault by the Council by the Council which did not cause the complainants significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the matter by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman