Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council recommending the grant of a permission for a development near his house, the planning committee’s decision to grant the permission, or how the Council responded to his complaint. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. Even if the complaint were in time, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s and its committee’s decision-making processes to warrant investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a site whose owner received planning permission for a residential development in early 2022. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to properly consider the application and relevant documents;
2. failed to give due regard to the many objections made against the development;
3. relied upon incomplete, wrong or misleading information produced by the developer and showed bias in their favour;
4. failed to give the Planning Committee which granted the permission sufficient time to consider the application documents and form a proper, balanced view;
5. failed to properly respond to his complaint.
2. Mr X also complains about the Highways Authority’s (HA) involvement in the application, as a consultee.
3. Mr X says he has been under immense stress for five years fighting this and earlier development proposals for the site. He says he fears damage to his property from the work done at the site further down a hillside. Mr X has great concern about the impact on traffic and parking both during the development and once the properties are built. He is fearful of the development blighting the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Area it is in, and it setting a precedent for similar developments.
4. Mr X wants the Council to:
• preferably revoke the permission, but realises this will not be possible;
• acknowledge its errors and apologise for them;
• sanction officers responsible for the errors;
• provide indemnity insurance to cover any damage to his property and other areas off-site caused by the development;
• rigorously enforce the conditions placed on the permission;
• reduce the working hours permitted to restrict noise nuisance;
• pay him financial compensation to recognise its failings and the prolonged stress caused by the planning and complaints processes;
• improve its planning service for the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
7. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision-making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information provided by Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The development site has been the subject of previous planning applications. The Council received the application complained of in 2021 and the planning committee granted the permission in January 2022. Mr X was aware of the decision at that time. He complained to the Council in January 2023, then to us in mid-March 2023. We expect people to complain to us within 12 months of them becoming aware of the matter complained of, so the complaint is late. We may investigate late complaints only if there is good reason to do so. I recognise Mr X says he ran out of steam after dealing with earlier planning issues at the site, and after the decision to approve the application, which he found upsetting. But I do not consider that a good reason for a delay of 14 months in raising the matter with us. Mr X could have brought the complaint to us sooner and within 12 months of the planning decision.
10. Even if the complaint had been in time, we would not have investigated here. I say this because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning processes complained of to warrant an investigation.
11. We may only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making processes and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we would consider the processes the Council and the committee have followed in making their planning decisions.
12. Mr X says the Council’s planning officers failed to properly consider the application and relevant documents, failed to give sufficient regard to objections made against the development and relied upon incomplete, wrong or misleading information produced by the developer and showed bias in their favour. The planning officers’ report considered the application and the relevant planning issues. Where an objector had commented regarding the material planning issue under discussion, including the matters Mr X raised, officers responded with their views and explained why they did not consider it gave grounds for a refusal of the permission. The report also separately listed each objection. The report assessed the information provided by the applicant. Where officers considered it was lacking, they stated this and made suggestions for the committee to consider, such as the addition of planning conditions. The Council commissioned a land survey about the stability of the site and surrounding area, to gather further evidence to inform the decision on that issue. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council’s officers, during their part in the planning process, to warrant investigation.
13. Mr X is critical of the HA’s comments about parking and traffic, provided to officers for the report. But the Council did not produce and was not responsible for the HA’s submissions, as the HA is a separate local authority. If Mr X wishes to pursue a complaint about those submissions, this would be a separate complaint to the HA. The Council’s role as the planning authority was to take account of the HA’s submissions as part of the assessment of highways and parking issues raised by the application. The officer’s report shows they did this in detail, responding to relevant consultee comments and objectors’ points. They gave their view that the traffic and parking matters, either during the development phase or after its completion, would not give the Council grounds to refuse the permission, which is a view they were entitled to express.
14. In any event, it was not the Council’s officers who decided the application. The officers’ report went to the planning committee, which was charged with deciding the application. Mr X says the committee was not given enough time to consider the application documents and form a proper, balanced view. Members of the committee had before them the application and the associated documents, including objections received. If Members had felt they needed more time to consider that information, it was within their powers to defer the decision until a later meeting. They chose not to do this and determined the application, which was a decision they were entitled to make. Members were also not bound by the officers’ recommendation to grant the permission. They could have also deferred their decision if they believed they did not have enough information from the report and the other planning documents to enable them to properly determine the application. Members were satisfied they had sufficient information to take a vote, and the committee voted to grant the application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the planning committee here in how it considered and determined the planning application to justify investigation.
15. I realise Mr X considers the planning process was flawed and strongly disagrees with the outcome. But there is not enough evidence of such fault which would have altered the decision to warrant an investigation. It is not fault for a council to properly make a decision, to recommend an application be granted permission, with which someone disagrees. Nor is it fault for a planning committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
16. Mr X complains about the way the Council responded to his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now; and
• even if the complaint had not been late, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s and the planning committee’s decision-making processes to warrant investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman