Summary: Mr X complained about the conduct of members in a planning committee meeting. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different result.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Chair of the planning committee did not count the votes properly on an application. He says there was confusion about the result on the first vote, resulting in a second vote. After this a member pointed out more people voted second time than first time. The Chair then went to a third vote.
2. Mr X complains the first two votes were against the application while the third one was for it. He says the committee granted the application against the case officer’s recommendation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X gave to the Ombudsman in his complaint. I have also considered the information the Council provided to him.
5. Mr X has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X attended a planning committee meeting as an objector. He complains the Chair of the committee did not count the votes properly on an application.
7. Mr X says the first vote was even. He says the Chair decided on a second vote, because of confusion about numbers of votes. The second vote was against the application.
8. Mr X says a member pointed out more people voted the second time than first time. He says the Chair went to a third vote, asking anyone who did not vote first time not to vote the third time.
9. Mr X says the third vote was for the application, with more votes than the first time. He wants the planning application rejected.
10. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s investigation of the complaint because he says it is inaccurate and failed to question other witnesses at the meeting.
11. The Council’s investigating officer interviewed officers present at the committee meeting. He decided the Chair had acted within the law in his management of the meeting. He said the committee’s decisions must be by simple majority and, when tied, the Chair had the casting vote.
12. The investigating officer said the Chair had not acted beyond his powers, or other than in good faith. He noted the Chair was happy to accept the first two votes and only called a further vote when challenged by members of the committee about numbers voting and what they were voting on.
13. The investigating officer said the Chair’s role was to make sure the committee’s decisions were clear, with no doubt about the result. He said the Chair had done this. The officer said the result was the same as it would have been at the first vote, with the Chair saying he would use his casting vote to decide it.

Analysis

14. From the evidence I have seen the Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint. I accept he may be unhappy with the result and the officer did not interview him and other witnesses for their recollections. However, members of the public may comment in a planning meeting but cannot have any involvement in the voting.
15. The investigating officer has interviewed those directly involved with the matter. They have direct knowledge of the events and have explained what happened. This is what the Ombudsman would expect.
16. There was no fault in retaking the vote. It is correct the Chair must make sure the committee’s decisions are clear. The Chair did this when it was obvious some committee members were unclear about what they were voting on.
17. A planning committee does not have to follow the case officer’s recommendation. It must make its own decision on the applications before it. The committee did this, even if Mr X found the experience an unsatisfactory one.
18. We are not an appeal body. Without fault in the decision making we cannot ask the Council to reject the application.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has investigated Mr X's complaint and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different result.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman