Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application including not properly completing the validation process. Mr C says this has led to concern about the treatment of future applications and unnecessary legal costs and time and trouble. We have found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains on behalf of both his mother (Mrs B) and a former neighbour (Mrs X) that the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for a new dwelling. In particular, Mr C says the Council did not properly complete the validation process by ensuring the applicant provided the correct land ownership certificates and failed to consider representations about this and other matters.
2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault, his former neighbour is concerned about how the Council would consider future applications although the applicant cannot implement the current planning permission. Mr C also says his former neighbour has incurred legal expenses to protect her interests and he has spent unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. 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. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council, the information on the Council’s planning website and the relevant law and guidance detailed below.
7. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and Policy

8. Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that a council “shall not entertain” a planning application that does not meet the certification requirements set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. An application is not valid, and therefore cannot be determined by the local planning authority, unless the relevant certificate has been completed. It also says that anyone who knowingly or recklessly issues a false or misleading certificate is guilty of an offence.
9. Article 13 requires planning applicants to give notice of the application to any other person who is an owner of the land to which the application relates. This can be done by:
1. serving the notice on every such person whose name and address is known to the applicant; and
2. where the applicant has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the names and addresses of every such person, but has been unable to do so, by publication of the notice after the prescribed date in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated.
10. Government guidance sets out which ownership certificate should be signed:

Certificate A – Sole Ownership and no agricultural tenants. This should only be completed if the applicant is the sole owner of the land to which the application relates and there are no agricultural tenants.

Certificate B – Shared Ownership (All other owners/agricultural tenants known). This should be completed if the applicant is not the sole owner, or if there are agricultural tenants, and the applicant knows the names and addresses of all the other owners and/or agricultural tenants.

Certificate C – Shared Ownership (Some other owners/agricultural tenants known). This should be completed if the applicant does not own all of the land to which the application relates and does not know the name and address of all of the owners and/or agricultural tenants.

Certificate D – Shared Ownership (None of the other owners/agricultural tenants known). This should be completed if the applicant does not own all of the land to which the application relates and does not know the names and addresses of any of the owners and/or agricultural tenants.

11. Courts can quash a planning permission granted following submission of an incorrect certificate. Case law has established a Court may not always quash planning permission following submission of an incorrect certificate. This is where the Court has found no prejudice to other landowners.

Key events

12. Mrs B sold her property to Mrs X in 2019 but retained a strip of land around the property. Mrs B lives elsewhere.
13. The Council received a planning application in August 2020 for a new dwelling. The application included a signed Certificate B and declaration. The Council validated the application.
14. Both Mrs X and Mr C made representations about the application to the Council. These included that a Certificate B notice had been served on a person who had no ownership of the land but had not been served on other owners who did. Both Mrs B and Mrs X claim an ownership interest in the land.
15. The case officer contacted the applicant’s agent to say it had been brought to their attention that other parties owned some of the land required to facilitate the access and proposed passing place and these parties would need to be notified and the ownership certificate updated accordingly for the application to be valid. The case officer also sought an amended location plan. The application was invalidated.
16. The Council subsequently received a Certificate C and declaration with a copy of the required advertisement in the local press. The Certificate C detailed the steps the applicant had taken to identify the other owners of the land without success. The applicant also provided updated drawings including the location plan.
17. The Council validated the application in October.
18. Mr C says the applicant was aware of the other owners and should have issued a Certificate B notice and considers the Council should have insisted on this rather than accepting the Certificate C. I do not agree. The Council made further enquiries of the applicant’s agent once it became aware that incorrect information had been provided with the application. The Council correctly invalidated the application until it received further information which it considered was satisfactory. The Council then validated the application and proceeded to determination. I do not consider the Council acted with fault here. In these circumstances, there are no grounds for me to recommend a remedy for the legal expenses Mrs X considered were necessary to protect her own interests during the planning process or Mr C’s time and trouble in making a complaint.
19. The Council has not been able to provide a copy of the neighbour notification letters or site notice for the application due to issues following a migration to a new system. The Council has provided system notes which show a neighbour notification map was produced in August when the application was first received and validated and the list of neighbours notified.
20. I understand that neither Mr C nor Mrs X received a notification letter. I do not propose to investigate further whether this was as a result of some fault by the Council as it is clear that both Mr C and Mrs X were aware of the application and made representations. However, I would remind the Council that the Ombudsman considers it is good practice to keep a record of any letters and/or site notices issued and a photograph of the site notice in location can help councils demonstrate they have fulfilled the statutory publication requirements.
21. Mr C also raised concerns about the content and level of detail in the case officer’s report. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
22. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

23. The case officer’s report set outs the relevant policies, planning history and material planning considerations. The report includes a summary of the representations received and describes the relationship of the proposals to the nearest residential properties. The report provides an assessment of the material planning considerations and concludes the proposals were acceptable.
24. Based on the information provided, I consider the Council had enough relevant information and properly considered the material planning issues when reaching its decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman