Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s determination of a planning application because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome from that already achieved by the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that, when the Council determined a planning application for works to a building in the area, it did not take legitimate objections properly into account, particularly those of a Borough Councillor (the Councillor). As a result, the Council did not submit the application to its Planning Committee for determination. Mr X said this lack of proper consideration meant that the Council approved an application it should not have, causing a negative impact on local residents.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I discussed Mr X’s complaint with him on the telephone.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, policy and guidance

Planning permission

6. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.

Decision making process and delegation

7. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the council’s development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
8. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.
9. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.

What happened

10. A householder planning application was submitted to make changes to a home in the Council area.
11. The Council delegated its decision-making authority to a planning officer who approved the application.
12. Mr X, who represents a residents’ association, contacted the Council to express his concern that the Council had approved the application without taking account of objections raised by residents, the relevant Town Council, the Councillor, and the Residents Committee. He also complained it had not listed the application for consideration by the Council’s Planning Committee, as the Councillor had requested.
13. The Council’s response to Mr X included that “the correct procedure has been followed and all material considerations were taken into account”. It explained that, after the Councillor had asked for the application to be listed for consideration by the Planning Committee, the Council had re-consulted on amended plans.
14. It then asked the Councillor if his request for the application to be listed for consideration by the Council’s Planning Committee still stood. The Councillor did not see the Council’s query and so did not re-confirm his listing request. And so, the Council had determined the application without reference to the Planning Committee.
15. Mr X responded that “silence should not be taken as a presumption of acceptance. If a councillor has requested a listing, unless the application is withdrawn, that should remain in place unless the councillor explicitly withdraws that request”.
16. The Council decided this contact amounted to a formal complaint and responded to it at stage one of its complaints procedure. It said that its officers had discussed the application with the Councillor several times. The officers believed they had answered his queries and addressed his concerns. When the Councillor did not respond to their email asking if his listing request still stood, the Council “concluded that he was happy for officers to make the decision”. It said the Councillor agreed that “had he wanted the listing request to continue then he should/would have confirmed such, following the re-consultation”.
17. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure. He repeated his complaint that a lack of a response from the Councillor should not have been taken as a response either way, and the application should have been considered by the Planning Committee.
18. The Council responded that, with no indication from the Councillor that the listing should proceed, the planning officers determined that the amended plan resolved the issues. And so, the officers decided the listing was no longer necessary.
19. The Council’s response continued that: "to avoid ambiguity occurring in the future, the Service aim[s] to explicitly inform Councillors that a listing request will be considered withdrawn unless stated otherwise, particularly when preceded by appropriate consultation”. And: "to ensure there is clarity, the Service will explore options for Councillors to explicitly confirm or withdraw their listing requests after consultation.”
20. Mr X escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Council’s response to my enquiries

21. I asked the Council what progress it had made in implementing the actions it had committed to in response to Mr X’s complaint. It told me it had:
1. “Incorporated the guidance [on confirming and withdrawing listing requests] into the Annual Member training scheduled for June 2026. The training is accessible to both newly elected and returning members, ensuring everyone receives consistent guidance”; and
2. “Added the topic to the agenda for Planning Committee Member training, which includes both committee members and substitutes, further reinforcing its importance across all relevant groups.”

My findings

22. The Council has taken action to incorporate new guidance on confirming and withdrawing listing requests into its training for Councillors and Planning Committee members. Even if further investigation by the Ombudsman were to find fault by the Council that caused injustice, it is unlikely that we would be able to achieve more through our investigation than the Council has already done through its own actions. And so, I have decided to end my investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have ended my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. We cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome from further investigation as we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman