The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application and its decision to grant planning permission. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the planning process is unfair and lacks transparency. She says there was: Inadequate notice of a planning meeting Full objections and photographs are not attached to the planning officer’s report No information about traffic volume was in the report; and The highways authority did not comment on the application.
Mrs X wants: the Council to make her road available for resident parking only; and ensure her road and other local roads are patrolled for traffic offences.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X and others objected to a new planning application for an extension to a medical practice. The objections were based on increased demand for on street parking by practice patients and staff.
Mrs X says there was not enough notice of the planning meeting. However, the Council must, by law, to ensure there is at least five days’ notice for an application being included on the agenda for the planning committee. The Council ensured the agenda was published according to its statutory requirements. We cannot criticise the Council on this point.
Mrs X is unhappy that her comments and photographs were not attached to the planning officer’s report.
The courts have made it clear that case officer reports: do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal issues do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are knowledgeable 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.
The case officer report included: a description of the proposal and site a summary of relevant planning history a summary of the objections received, including those made by Mrs X details of relevant national and local planning policy an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the impact on parking and the surrounding streets; and the reasons for the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, with planning conditions.
The meeting minutes confirm the application was considered and a representative of the medical practice spoke in support of the application. The Council confirms further comments made by Mrs X were read in full to the committee at her request. The committee members had the opportunity to comment and ask questions. The application was then approved.
I understand Mrs X considers the meeting minutes were not detailed enough. However, the minutes are not expected or required to be a verbatim record. They show: the application was considered who spoke in favour of the application that a councillor declared an interest and withdrew from the meeting while the application was considered; and the result of the vote.
Mrs X is also concerned the Council decided to approve the application without a comment from the local Highways Authority. The Council’s records show the Highways Authority was consulted. The fact it chose not to comment is a matter for the Highway Authority, not the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. I understand she is not satisfied with the way the Council considered and decided to approve the planning application. However, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking as we cannot require the Council to restrict her road to resident parking only or enforce against traffic offences.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman