Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about which newspaper the Council used to publicise a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly publicise a planning application for a development near to his home, as it placed a notice in a newspaper which is not local to the application site.
2. Mr X says he was unaware of the permission until nine months after it had been granted, when vibrations and sounds began to emanate from the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council. This included their complaint correspondence, and clarification from the Council about why it used the newspaper in question to publicise the application.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• the Council’s ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ (SCI).
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Article 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (referred to here as the ‘DMPO’) requires Councils to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. Councils will also often have an SCI, which sets out the publicity methods it will use for the different types of application.
6. Here, the original application was for a major development, so a site and press notice were required. Later, the proposed development site was reduced in size, so it became a minor application, which only required a site notice to be erected.
7. The DMPO says press notices should be published, ‘in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated’. The Council’s SCI says, ‘an advert will be placed in a local newspaper appropriate to the location of the planning application’.
8. The Council used Newspaper Y to advertise the original application. Mr X says this newspaper is not sold in local shops, and that councillors and the Parish Council have confirmed it is not the recognised local newspaper. They believe Newspaper Z should have been used instead.
9. The Council says Newspaper Y has been identified as a newspaper circulating in the locality and appropriate to the location of the application. It says applications in this ward have been published in Newspaper Y over recent years following a review by the planning team at the former district council prior to 2021.
10. It is clearly unfortunate that Mr X was unaware of the planning application and was unable to comment on it. But, with reference to paragraph 3 above, I find there is insufficient evidence of fault with regard to which newspaper the Council used, to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the use of Newspaper Y appears to comply with the broad requirement to use a newspaper ‘circulating in the locality’.
• The minor application which was ultimately approved did not require the publication of a press notice anyway.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with regard to the newspaper used by the Council to publicise the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman