Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the incorrect recording of the number of objections received to a planning application. We do not consider the complainant has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement. Nor do we consider we can add to the Council’s consideration of the complaint, or that an investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council may not have properly considered all neighbour responses to planning applications. He says there are discrepancies between the number of objections received to a specific planning application and the number noted in the Planning Officer’s report.
2. Mr X says this has had a negative impact on the trust he has in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application to develop a property near Mr X’s home. He and several neighbours commented on the proposals.
7. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This stated 36 objections to the proposal had been received from 10 addresses. The Planning Officer’s report includes a summary of all the objections to the application, including those from Mr X and the town council. The report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the Officer made their recommendation to approve the scheme. The Officer decided the proposal would not have a harmful visual impact, nor would there be any harmful adverse impacts on neighbouring homes. This is a professional judgement and the recommendation is one the Officer is entitled to make.
8. The application was referred to the Council’s Planning Committee for decision. At the meeting the Officer confirmed another objection had been received. Mr X spoke to the Committee. He corrected the number of objections received stating that 38 objections had been received from 12 addresses.
9. Following Mr X’s representations and those from the applicant in support of the proposals, the Committee Members debated the proposal. The Committee voted by eight votes to one to approve the application.
10. There is an expectation that Officer reports to Council committees are accurate. However, in this case, the Planning Committee was made aware that 37 objections had been received (36 noted in the report and a verbal update of a further objection) from 10 addresses. Mr X corrected this, stating 38 objections had been received from 12 addresses. So, I am satisfied the Committee was aware of the number of objections received before deciding to approve the application. Furthermore, having considered the objections received as they appeared on the Council’s website, I am satisfied the substance of the objections was accurately summarised and considered in the Planning Officer’s report.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. I understand Mr X says the minor error in the recording of the number of objections received to the planning application has led him to lose trust in the Council. However, I do not consider this is enough of a significant personal injustice to warrant our involvement.
12. Also, I am satisfied the Committee was clear on the development proposed and the objections received before deciding to approve the application. Therefore, I do not consider that we can add to the Council’s response to the complaint or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman