Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development near his home. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council does not follow its own procedures, does not consult and that its communication is extremely poor. He says planning documents were not made available with some corrupted, missing or irrelevant, councillors treated him in a rude manner and work started at the site in advance of the end of a consultation period. Mr X says his concerns have not been adequately addressed, he has been caused stress and anxiety and fears for the loss of wildlife and green space in his locale.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council received an outline planning application for a development on land to the rear of Mr X’s property. The Council notified residents about the application and received objections against it. Due to an administrative error the planned committee meeting to determine the application was delayed and the Council emailed Mr X about the new date of the online meeting.
5. Mr X attended the meeting and objectors to the application were given the standard 5 minutes to speak against it. The Committee decided to grant outline consent with a reserved matters application due to follow.
6. Unhappy with the Council’s handling of matters, including the use of email to notify those who had commented on the application about the delayed committee meeting, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. Its Planning and Legal Teams separately addressed the various matters raised by Mr X but his complaint was not upheld, although the Legal Team did acknowledge that a couple of responses made at Stage 1 of the complaints procedure fell short of the high standards it expects from its officers.

Assessment

7. While I understand Mr X was disappointed with the Council’s decision to develop the site, he was not stopped from making his objections and his views were expressed by objectors who spoke to the Committee meeting, despite the short notice.
8. He says other sites could have been used for the development and that the Council ignored his requests for a meeting to discuss the use of a suitable alternative. However, councils must determine the applications which come before them.
9. Mr X says the Council’s responses to the various issues he raised were dismissive, but I consider they were adequately addressed. It explained its committee notification process and the guidance on speaking at planning committee meetings which, while open to the public, are not public meetings.
10. Mr X has also highlighted that work at the site began before the end of the consultation period for the reserved matters application. However, outline permission had already been given and work can start under this consent, including the removal of trees not the subject of protection measures.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman