Summary: Ms B complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for development near to her home. She considered the proposals will have an adverse impact on the ecology of the site and that the mitigation measures were inadequate. There was fault in the way the Council handled Ms B’s complaint for which it should apologise.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Ms B. She complained the Council did not properly consider a planning application for development near to her home. She considered the proposals will have an adverse impact on the ecology of the site and that the mitigation measures were inadequate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Ms B and spoke to her I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Ms B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary

6. The Council applied for planning permission for development on its own land. Ms B objected to the scheme and then complained to the Council when planning permission was granted about the way it had considered the application. She was dissatisfied with the response so complained to us.
7. Her complaint stemmed from how the Council considered ecological issues on the site. But she also complained about the Council’s response to her objections and information she supplied and how it responded to her complaints. I will consider each point.

The consideration of the application and Ms B’s comments

8. As part of the submission of the application the Council had, as the planning applicant, commissioned an ecological report on the site. The biodiversity officer commented on the application and stressed the importance of following best practice in relation to the slow worm population on the site.
9. Ms B submitted written comments on the application, in particular on the potential impacts on the ecology of the area and on the slow worms.
10. The Council, in its role as planning applicant, asked the firm who had carried out the ecological survey to respond to the points raised with a revised ecological assessment with a covering letter addressing Ms B’s points. What seems to have then happened is the firm responded commenting on Ms B’s points but no revised overall assessment was submitted.
11. The additional report was published on the Council’s website and referred by name to Ms B and her comments on the application. Ms B considered this was inappropriate and she said she felt bullied and that the Council had abused its powers.
12. The position here is the Council has two roles: one as the planning authority which must determine the application, and as the planning applicant. There is nothing unusual or wrong with the planning authority asking an applicant to comment on points raised during the consideration of the application. Where they are of a technical nature that might mean the applicant obtaining further specialist advice and analysis. That is what happened here as the Council as the planning authority asked the company it had used to carry out the survey to comment on the points raised. That is not fault. I can understand why Ms B feels as she does as the report referred specifically to her. That was not necessary, and does not appear to be what the Council had asked for, but it is not in itself fault. If Ms B considered there had been a breach of data protection requirements then that would be a matter for the Information Commissioner.

The decision

13. The report on the application included detail about the various ecological issues relevant to the site. There was discussion at the committee meeting about the issues. The Council imposed a condition on the planning permission that required the submission and approval of a detailed ecological management plan. The condition specified what the plan needed to cover. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of the relevant ecological issues. The imposition of the condition requiring the submission of a management plan meant it retained control of the detail of what needed to happen.
14. Ms B considers the mitigation arrangements the Council subsequently approved are flawed. That is not a complaint I will consider at the moment. This complaint is about the consideration of the planning application but this point relates to later events. Ms B would need to make a complaint to the Council raising her concerns about the mitigation measures. If she was not satisfied with the response then she could make a further complaint to us.

Designation of the land

15. Ms B believed that a small part of the site was designated as leisure services land. The Council has commented that the plan Ms B referred to shows land ownership by service area. I have not seen any evidence to show that the land was held as, or needed to be retained, as open space or for leisure services use.

Complaint response

16. In response to Ms B’s complaint the Council suggested a meeting. Ms B was happy to work with the Council on wider issues (she has a particular interest in, and knowledge of, ecological matters) but asked for a response to her complaint.
17. The Council responded. Ms B was not satisfied with the response and asked for it to be escalated to the next stage of the complaint process. Ms B’s complaint referred to other matters and other sites, not just the one being considered here. It raised her wider concerns about the Council’s approach to ecological matters.
18. It took the Council almost three months to respond to Ms B. The Council said that was because of the complexity of the matters raised and the involvement of a number of different services areas. The matters were not so complex that it justified the time taken to respond. Nor did the Council respond adequately to Ms B’s complaint about the commissioning of the report which I refer to above.
19. Although there was not fault in the decision to seek further comment on Ms B’s comments the Council should have provided a proper response on how it had come about and its differing roles in the application process.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. The Council will, within a month of this decision, apologise to Ms B for the fault in the complaint process.

Back to top

Final decision

21. There was fault which led to injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman