Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• Suppressed and blocked multiple objections to her neighbour’s planning application from its website
• Failed to display a valid site notice
• Produced an incorrect report on the proposal; and
• Failed to refer the application to the planning committee for a decision.
2. She wants the Council to:
• Process the planning application again
• Refer the application to the planning committee
• Apologise
• Retrain planning staff; and
• Compensate her for costs she has incurred.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application from Mrs X’s neighbour to extend their property.
7. The Council erected a site notice. It is satisfied a site notice was attached to a lamp post near the site. It also wrote to Mrs X and other neighbours.
8. I understand Mrs X believes the Council did not display a valid site notice and says the Council changed the deadline for representations. She says this was confusing and misled the public.
9. 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 are not required to enter into a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
10. So, even if there was fault in the way the Council publicised the application, I do not consider Mrs X suffered any injustice as she made multiple objections to the application.
11. Mrs X also says unnamed people have told her that other written objections were sent to the Council before it decided to approve the planning application.
12. The Council’s website shows multiple objections received from Mrs X and two other members of the public. In response to Mrs X’s complaints, the Council confirmed it did not suppress or withhold any information except that which breached the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). I understand Mrs X disagrees with this statement, but we have seen no evidence to suggest the Council failed to publish objections received which met the requirements of GDPR.
13. Mrs X says the Council ignored her requests for the application to be referred to the planning committee. The Council’s scheme of delegation provides for most applications to be decided by the Head of Planning. An application will be decided by the Planning Committee only if it is of a certain size or a Councillor has asked for it to be referred.
14. I understand Mrs X wanted her neighbour’s planning application to be decided by the planning committee. However, it did not meet the criteria set out in the scheme of delegation. There is no mechanism for a member of the public to refer an application to the planning committee. Therefore, there was no fault in the Council approving the application under delegated authority.
15. Mrs X complains of faults in the Planning Officer’s report on the planning application.
16. The Planning Officer’s report:
• Describes the proposal
• Contains a summary of the objections received
• Details the relevant national and local policies; and
• Explains the Officer’s reasons for recommending approval.
17. The courts have made it clear that officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the council and the applicant) who are well experienced of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key material issues.
18. Councils will grant permission where they consider proposals are in line with relevant planning policies and they find no planning reasons of sufficient weight to justify refusal.
19. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning policies; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
20. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if we investigated.
21. In her complaint form. Mrs X says she wants the application to be processed again and referred to the planning committee for decision. This is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions which have caused Mrs X a significant personal injustice. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman