Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence that fault has affected the planning outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. A residents group (the Group) says the Council has failed to properly handle a planning application for a development near their road. In particular, the Group says:
• There was delay in receiving the application notification letters, and they were not informed that representations could be submitted after the deadline stated in the letter.
• There are inaccuracies/inconsistencies within the various reports submitted with the application.
• Residents were not invited to the Planning Committee site visit, and some Committee Members were observed behaving informally.
• Two Committee members had not read the late representation submitted by the Group.
• They were unable to contest new issues raised by other parties during the Committee meeting.
• The Committee should not have placed weight on the representations submitted by the Town Council, and it failed to properly consider other relevant planning issues.
• The Council has failed to engage with residents and has ignored their objections.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:
• information provided by the Group and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application and the Planning Committee meeting, including the audio recording, available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the complainant. In the context of a complaint about a planning application, this means we will consider whether any fault in the decision‑making process is likely to have affected the planning outcome. If we are satisfied the outcome is likely to have been the same, we will not investigate the complaint.
5. In this case, I am satisfied there is not enough evidence to conclude that fault has affected the unanimous decision to approve the application, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The volume of opposition to a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing a planning application. Rather, decisions should be made in accordance with the adopted development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
• Planning policies may pull in different directions. It is for the decision maker (in this case the Planning Committee) to consider the information in front of it and decide the weight to be given to any material planning consideration when determining an application, even if the Group disagrees with that judgement.
• The Council publicised the application in accordance with statutory requirements, and cannot be held responsible for any delays by the postal service in delivering the notification letters. The Council considered representations received after the deadline date stated in the notification letter.
• The Council’s procedure is that a site visit is not a public meeting, so objectors/supporters are not invited. The visit is an opportunity for Members to better understand the proposal and the surrounding area, but does not form part of the Committee meeting/debate.
• The Council is not responsible for the way the Town Council reached its decision to support the proposal.
• The Committee was made aware of the Group’s late representation during the meeting.
• It was for the Group to decide what issues to focus on in their late representation and subsequent presentation to the Committee meeting, and the standard procedure for speaking at a Committee meeting was followed.
• The Committee report summarises the responses received from consultees and the 42 third-party representations.
• The main body of the Committee report includes a detailed assessment of the material planning issues, under the headings Principle of development, Heritage, Appearance and design, Impact on amenity, Sustainable design and construction, Flood risk, Ecology, and Highways.
• Conditions have been imposed on the planning permission, including ones which control the demolition and construction of buildings on the site, the installation of lighting, and surface water drainage/flood management
6. It is also important to highlight that the Ombudsman could not direct the Council to remake the decision, so an investigation could not achieve the main outcome the Group is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate the Group’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that fault has affected the planning outcome, and we cannot achieve the main outcome they are seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman