Summary: Mr B complains that councillors did not follow proper procedures when deciding his planning application. He says that as a result the building works were delayed. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr B’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that councillors did not follow proper procedures when deciding his planning application. He says that as a result the building works were delayed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

5. Mr B applied for retrospective planning permission for an extension to his home. The planning officer was going to approve the application but three councillors asked for it to be considered by the planning committee.
6. The planning committee considered the application and deferred a decision so members could visit the site. After the site visit it the committee considered it again and approved the application.
7. Mr B complained that one of the councillors, Councillor X, spoke at the first planning meeting in support of his neighbour who objected to the application. He considered that comments Councillor X made about the application were incorrect and that he should not have taken the neighbour’s side over his. He complained that another councillor, Councillor Y, was a close personal friend of the neighbour who had objected to the planning application and should not, therefore, have taken any part in the consideration of the planning application.
8. Mr B complained to us but we said he needed to raise his complaint as a standards matter with the Council. Mr B did so and the Council responded. Mr B was not satisfied with the response so renewed his complaint with us.

Analysis

9. The Council has, as it is required to do, a policy on how it will deal with complaints about councillors. This states that the monitoring officer will review complaints received and decide whether they should be investigated. My role here is to consider whether there was any fault in how the Council considered this.
10. The monitoring officer wrote to Mr B explaining why he did not consider the complaints should be investigated. In respect of Councillor X he said that Mr B had not provided any detail about the incorrect information the councillor presented to the committee but there was no evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead so he could not take that part of the complaint further. He went on to say that any error would have been superseded as there was a site visit so the members of the committee could see the site for themselves.
11. Mr B firmly believes that the comments of Councillor X were made deliberately to misled and that he would have known what he was saying wasn’t correct. I understand Mr B’s point but I do not think this undermines the Council’s view that without some clear evidence the matter should not be investigated further.
12. In responding about Councilllor Y the officer said that a request to call in a planning application to be considered by planning committee was ‘neutral’ and made without prejudice to the ultimate decision of the Council as local planning authority. There were no specific criteria to be satisfied in making such a request, but typical factors included awareness of particular sensitivities in the community regarding the development, concerns expressed by neighbours (actual or anticipated), status of the applicant or close associates. He said that as an example, should a councillor, senior officer, local MP, or their family members or close associates make a planning application, such applications would invariably be considered by the committee, rather than under a delegation to an officer: this was to promote open and transparent decision-making by elected members in a forum open to public scrutiny. He said that Councillor Y was a member of the planning committee. So, if one of the objectors to Mr B’s application was personally known to him, a request by him for the application to be referred to the committee would be an appropriate way of ensuring there was no risk of any suggestion he had inappropriately influenced an officer in making a decision. He said Councillor Y did disclose to officers that he knew one of the objectors and would therefore be taking no further part in the determination of the application. He had no involvement in either the site visit or when the matter returned to the planning committee for determination: there was therefore no need for him to make a declaration of interest in the committee meeting. Nor was there any offence committed as his acquaintance with the neighbor was not a disclosable pecuniary interest as defined in law.
13. I do not consider the approach taken by the Council is flawed. Councillor Y’s only involvement was to call in the application for determination by the planning committee. As the officer correctly explains this is a routine and not significant action. It does not indicate pre-determination or bias. I recognise Mr B considers that Councillor Y should have declared his friendship with the neighbour but it is recorded that he took no part in the consideration of the application.
14. I therefore consider the Council has properly considered whether it should investigate Mr B’s complaint and I have no grounds to challenge the decision it has made.

Back to top

Final decision

15. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman