Summary: The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint about the grant of planning permission for development next to the complainant’s homes. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. A group of 5 neighbouring households, who I will refer to as group A, complain that the chair of the planning committee:
• Failed to allow objectors their allotted time to speak
• Failed to prevent supporters of the application from focussing on personal rather than planning matters
• Failed to allow an officer to respond to a question from committee members; and
• Was pre-determined to approve the application before hearing all arguments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by group A. I also considered the planning information available on the Council’s website and watched a webcast of the planning committee meeting.
4. Group A commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Owners of a neighbouring property to group A’s homes applied to the Council for planning permission for two storey and single storey extensions to their home. The Council refused the application because it decided the application was overdevelopment of the site.
6. The applicant put in a new application for a two-storey extension. The Council publicised the application in the usual way. And members of group A sent in their objections. The application was referred to the Council’s planning committee for a decision.
7. Members of group A registered to speak at the committee meeting. Part of their complaint to the Council is the Chair of the meeting cut some of the speakers short of their allotted time of three minutes.
8. The Council told group A that it is not unusual for the Chair to ask groups of objectors to choose a spokesperson to speak for three minutes. However, in this case all those wanting to object could speak, even though many comments were the same or similar. It advised the timer is activated manually and counts down from three minutes. The Chair usually gives the speaker a 30 second warning, so they may wrap up their speech. In this case the Council says that 23 minutes of committee time was given to objectors. And that committee members had the information needed to make an informed decision on the application.
9. I have watched the webcast of the meeting. And, while two speakers may have been cut slightly short of the three minutes by a few seconds, most speakers finished before the three minutes without interjection by the Chair. I do not consider group A suffered any significant injustice on this point.
10. Group A also complain the Chair allowed those in support of the application to make personal insults about them and to make false and inaccurate comments. The Council says members are trained not to take non-material information into account when making planning decisions. From the information I have seen and the webcast of the meeting, the debate which took place after the speakers had given their comments both objecting and supporting the application, do not suggest non-material considerations were taken into account.
11. Turning to the allegation the Chair refused to allow an officer to answer committee member’s questions. There were two questions put to the officer. The first concerning the possible adoption of the private lane was answered in full. A second question queried the number of rooms in the property. I note from the webcast the Chair moved to a vote before this question was answered. But I do not consider this has caused significant injustice. The size and scale of the proposed extension is fully detailed in the case officer’s report which was available to committee members before the meeting. Also, the Council says members had visited the site. Therefore, it appears that members were fully aware of the size and location of the proposed extension. As well as its relationship to group A’s homes before they decided to approve the application.
12. Group A also state the Chair was predetermined to approve the application before all arguments were heard. Having viewed the webcast, I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the matter was conducted.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have not seen any evidence of fault which has caused significant personal injustice and warrants our involvement. Nor do we consider that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman