Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application for a site near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, it is reasonable to expect the complaint to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office on her concerns about the Council’s response to her requests for information.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to process a planning application according to the correct process. And that it has failed to provide information she has asked for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
7. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
8. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise any comments received; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
9. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.

My findings

10. Miss X complains the Council failed to notify her of a planning application for a site near her home.
11. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
12. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement confirms it will only notify those who share a common boundary when it receives a planning application. The application site which Miss X’s complaint refers to does not share a boundary with her apartment. Therefore, she did not receive a notification letter.
13. A planning officer visited the site and wrote a report on the proposal. The report includes a summary of the relevant all the objections to the application. It also details the relevant national and local planning policies and explains the planning officer’s reasons for recommending approval. This includes confirmation that:
• all windows in the development meet recommended separation guidelines in Council’s Supplementary Planning Document
• protected trees on the site will be retained
• there will be no overlooking/overshadowing etc.
14. The minutes of the planning committee meeting show two people spoke in support of the application and one against. It also shows the committee members debated the proposal before voting to grant planning permission.
15. I understand Miss X considers the Council should have notified her of the planning application. However, she does not share a boundary with the site and as the development is minor (a single home), therefore it is not obliged to do so. I also understand Miss X is concerned the view from her home has changed from trees and greenery to a building. However, this is not a material planning consideration for the Council. The rear elevation of her apartment block exceeds the Council’s guidance on minimum distance from the development.
16. Miss X is also concerned the Council has failed to provide information she has asked for. We consider it is reasonable to expect her to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). That is because this is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The ICO has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the planning application to justify an investigation. Also, it is reasonable to expect her to complain to the ICO if she is concerned about the Council’s responses to her requests for information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman