Recommendation not implemented: Disclosure of the identity of officers

Recommendation not implemented: Disclosure of the identity of officers

Published January 27, 2025

The complaint

The Commissioner for Environment and Planning investigated a complaint against the lack of disclosure by the Planning Authority of the identity of Officers processing summary development applications both at recommendation and decision phase.  The complaint adds that one cannot question whether the Case Officer is related or has ties with the applicant or has a conflict of interest.

The Investigation

The investigation found that this issue arises at both recommendation and decision phase whenever a Summary Procedure Application without representations is submitted whereas it only arises at recommendation stage when representations are received since decisions on these applications are taken publicly by the Planning Board or its delegate.

According to the Development Planning Act, meetings of the Planning Board when making decisions on development applications, must be open to the public.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that decisions made by delegates of the Planning Board should also be conducted in a public forum.  This necessitates that not only the identity of the individual making the decision be disclosed, but that the decision itself is made publicly.

Regarding the identity of the individual preparing the recommendation, it is noted that the Planning Authority previously used to publish the names of Planning Officers (Case Officer and Endorsement Officer), but this practice has since been discontinued, resulting in a lack of transparency.  The Development Planning Act mandates the disclosure of interests by Planning Officers and outlines the procedure for addressing potential conflicts of interest.  By withholding the identities of the Officers from public knowledge, the Planning Authority retains exclusive control over this information, which ideally should be accessible to third parties, including the general public.  Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that Planning Officers are classified as Public Officers under the Development Planning Act, hence calling for the identities of the Planning Officers responsible for preparing and endorsing recommendations to be made public.  For effective and timely scrutiny, this information should be disclosed concurrently with the recommendation and endorsement, as well as at the time the relevant decision is made.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The concerns raised regarding the Planning Authority's failure to disclose the identities of the Officers involved in processing Summary Development Applications during both the recommendation and decision phases are deemed valid.  

The Commissioner recommended that:

1. The identity of the individual responsible for making a decision on an application be publicly disclosed at the time the decision is rendered.
2. The decision-making process should be conducted in a public forum.
3. The identities of the Officers involved in preparing the recommendation, specifically the Case Officer and the Endorsing Officer, should also be made publicly available without delay.

Outcome

The Planning Authority did not accept any of these recommendations and the case was referred to the Prime Minister and to the House of Representatives in line with the Ombudsman Act.