Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with a planning application near his home. The Council is at fault because it did not advise him of the planning meeting, its communication with Mr X was poor and it didn’t not follow its complaints process properly. Mr X was unable to make representations in person and spent time and trouble raising issues with the Council. The Council has apologised, provided guidance to staff, revised processes and offered to pay Mr X £300 in respect of the distress and time and trouble he suffered. The Council should also provide training to staff about complaint handling.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not deal properly with a planning application near his home because it:
• Did not notify him of the committee meeting about the application;
• Did not properly consider the application for planning permission;
• Gave a conflicting description of the grant of planning permission;
• Did not answer his calls; and
• Didn’t handle his complaint properly
2. Mr X says he was prevented from making an objection in person at the planning committee, he suffered avoidable distress, his property value has decreased and he may have lost an opportunity to develop his property further.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning considerations include things like:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

9. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
11. Council officers and planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using ariel photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.
12. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
13. However, the courts have made it clear that case 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 versed 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.

What happened?

14. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
15. Mr X’s neighbour submitted an application for planning permission next to Mr X’s home. Mr X objected in writing to the proposed development.
16. Planning permission for the development was granted.
17. Mr X complained to the Council that he had not been notified of the Planning committee meeting and that mistakes had been made.
18. The Council upheld part of Mr X’s complaint but disagreed that it would have made a difference to the outcome of the application.

Analysis

Notification of planning committee meeting

19. The Council agrees that it did not notify Mr X of the planning meeting before it took place, and that as a result he was prevented from making his objections in person at the committee meeting. This is fault by the Council. Mr X suffered injustice because he was not able to speak at the planning meeting.

Consideration of planning permission

20. Mr X says the Council’s officer report is not accurate. I have seen a copy of Mr X’s draft speech to the planning committee that he was unable to deliver. It is clear the main area of concern relates to the driveway ownership and boundaries.
21. I have viewed the ‘access road’ using Google Earth. It consists of two primary strips of concrete roadway with a thin grass dividing line. There is no substantive division into two entrance/exits. Mr X has provided documents showing a clear division of ownership.
22. The officer report clearly identifies that objections relating to land ownership had been received. It also specifically makes clear that, “as part of the letters of objection, reference has been made to ownership of the access road, the applicant has served notice on all relevant lands owners and therefore no objection is raised in planning terms.”
23. On the balance of probabilities, the planning decision would not have been different because Mr X’s written objections were available to the committee, the committee were already aware of the issue of ownership of land used for access, and the officer report drew attention to this matter.
24. On the balance of probabilities, the other issues raised by Mr X about the report would not have been sufficient to cause the decision to have been made differently.
25. As stated in paragraph 11 there is no obligation on the Council to conduct a site visit.
26. The Council clearly considered the previous planning history of the site, as it is explicitly set out in the officer report concerning the application.
27. The Council considered the key material issues. This is not fault by the Council.

Conflicting grant of planning permission

28. The application is set out clearly in the officer report. The permission granted refers to the drawn plans submitted alongside the application. Although there is a mistake in the description of the permission granted, I consider it is clear what the intention of the Council was in granting permission. This is not fault by the Council.

Contact with the Planning Department

29. The Council agreed in its complaint response that Mr X had been unable to contact the planning department. This is fault by the Council. Mr X suffered distress and incurred time and trouble trying to contact the Council.

Complaints Handling

30. The Council accepts that there was a problem sending its stage 1 complaint response to Mr X. The response was sent a week late and in a confusing manner. This is fault by the Council. Mr X received a late complaint response and was unsure whether it was a complaint response or not.

Action taken by the Council

31. The Council has apologised that the letter inviting Mr X to the committee meeting was not sent to him in time for him to attend in person. The Council also says it has established revised procedures and refresher training to staff to avoid this happening again.
32. Planning managers have provided guidance to staff about the importance of answering telephones and responding to messages in a timely manner.
33. The Council has accepted that the circumstances have caused Mr X stress, time and effort and has offered to pay him £300 in respect of this.
34. I consider the actions and proposals of the Council are a partial remedy given the fault I have found.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Provide training or guidance to staff handling complaints about compliance with the Council’s complaints procedure.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman