Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not publish on its website an objection to a planning application. He says it is not clear the Council provided the Planning Committee with details of the objection before it made its decision. We have found the Council at fault for not publishing Group A’s objection in full. However, we are satisfied the Planning Committee had access to the objection and do not consider this fault caused an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not publish on its website a report submitted by Group A, objecting to a planning application. Mr X says members of the public could not view Group A’s objection and there is no evidence the Council provided members of the Planning Committee with details of Group A’s submission. Mr X says the Committee may have decided the application without seeing relevant information.

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’. 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)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
5. I considered the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint. I also considered information published on the Council’s public planning register, including minutes of the Planning Committee meeting, Group A’s report, and the Council’s report to the Planning Committee.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. The summary below provides an overview of the events leading to the Ombudsman’s investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange that has taken place.
8. In late 2021, the Council received a planning application, outlining a proposal to use an area of land for the purposes of energy production. This application was a revised application of a previous proposal relating to the same site.
9. During the consultation period, the application attracted a significant number of consultee comments, with more than 390 objections. A local ward councillor asked the Council to refer the application to the Planning Committee, citing the size, nature, and potential impact of the proposal.
10. Group A submitted to the Council a detailed document bundle outlining its opposition to the proposed development. The bundle contained an overview of Group A’s grounds for objection, as well as two reports commissioned by Group A. These reports focused on transport and infrastructure matters, and hydrogeological matters.
11. Group A submitted the document bundle in February 2022 by email. Mr X, on Group A’s behalf, asked the Council to confirm it would make the objection available on the public access website. The Council responded the same day, acknowledging receipt and confirming it would publish the documents submitted.
12. Mr X wrote to the Council in March 2022. He said Group A’s objection had not been published online, although more recent comments had been. Mr X asked the Council to confirm it had considered Group A’s objections when writing its report for the Planning Committee, and to publish the objections as soon as possible. The Council responded the same day, confirming it had received the objection. It said it had placed a copy on the planning file and this could be viewed by the public.
13. Mr X told the Council the public access site showed Group A had objected, but it was not possible to view the documents associated with the submission. The Council responded again, confirming it had taken account of the objection.
14. Mr X made a complaint about this. The Council issued its final complaint response to Mr X in April 2022. In this response, the Council said:
• Group A’s objection was uploaded as a public document on the Council’s public access website in February. It explained how to access the document.
• The documents and associated correspondence could be viewed at any time from the point the application was registered as valid.
• The consultant who had helped Group A compile its submission attended the Planning Committee meeting and spoke against the application in person.
• The officer’s report to the Planning Committee was thorough and had captured the main issues both for and against the development, including the concerns raised by Group A.
• It was satisfied Group A’s concerns had been considered by the case officer and by Members of the Planning Committee.
15. Mr X referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2022, advising Group A’s objection was still not available to view on the public access site.

Analysis

16. Mr X provided to the Ombudsman evidence showing that while there was a record Group A had submitted an objection on the Council’s website, it was not possible to view the associated documents. This included the overview of Group A’s objection and the two reports Group A commissioned to evidence its position.
17. During our initial assessment of Mr X’s complaint in May 2022, the Ombudsman also found there was a record of Group A’s objection to the proposed application, but we could not view the associated documentation. This was consistent with the evidence Mr X provided when he referred his complaint to us. The documents have since become available to view in full.
18. I concluded the Council did not immediately publish Group A’s objection, even though it said it would. Commenting on a draft version of this decision, the Council accepted this was the case. It explained the electronic documents had been corrupted during the redaction process and therefore did not publish properly.
19. The information on the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement webpage confirms it will publish comments on planning applications. I have found the Council at fault for not publishing Group A’s objection at the time. However, I do not consider this fault caused an injustice by affecting the outcome of the application.
20. Group A’s objection contains an overview document, summarising its objections to the proposed development. Section 6.1 of the officer’s report to the Planning Committee, concerning publicity around the application, confirms the Council received more than 391 objections. On pages 25-28, the officer’s report provides a summary of the grounds of objection. The objection summaries put forward by Group A are reproduced verbatim in this section of the officer’s report.
21. The officer’s report is expansive, evaluating the material planning considerations of the proposed development. The hydrogeological and transport infrastructure impacts of the development are explored. The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting confirm an objector, whom I understand to be Group A’s planning consultant, spoke to the Planning Committee about the proposed development. I am therefore satisfied the Planning Committee had access to Group A’s full objection when making its decision.
22. I recognise Mr X’s strongly held view that permission should not have been granted in this case. However, the Ombudsman is not a planning appeals body. We review the process by which planning decisions are made, looking for evidence of fault in this process. If we find fault, we decide whether this has caused an injustice to the complainant. We cannot substitute our own views in place of the Council’s, or question the merits of the decision to grant permission.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council. However, this fault did not cause an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman