Summary: Mr X complains that a councillor has an interest in a planning application and should not have voted on the proposal. The Ombudsman will not investigate this matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that a councillor should not have voted on a planning application due to his relationship to the applicant;
2. Mr X has also raised concerns the Council has backed the planning application against the case officer’s recommendation.
3. Mr X wants the planning application to made null and void.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

5. I have considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X is unhappy with a councillor voting on a planning application when the councillor has a relationship with the applicant.
7. In line with the Councillors’ Code of Conduct outlined by Harrogate Council, a Councillor must disclose any interest they have relating to their public duties and should take steps to resolve any conflicts.
8. The Councillor previously had a working relationship with the applicant. When the Council heard this planning application in October 2019, this working relationship no longer existed.
9. Various Councillors, including the Councillor in question, disclosed an interest in this planning application by being in the same political party. In line with the Councillors’ Code of Conduct I consider that this does not warrant an interest to exclude a Councillor from consideration of the planning application. None of the Councillor’s pecuniary interests exclude them from considering this application.
10. The monitoring officer reviewed this matter according to the correct process and determined no justification for the Councillor to exclude himself from consideration.
11. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled this matter. I have seen insufficient evidence of a close relationship between the Councillor and the applicant to justify exclusion.
12. The application for planning permission is for a property which is neither adjacent nor opposite to Mr X’s.
13. Mr X will not be overlooked or overshadowed by the building proposed within the planning application. There appears no effect on Mr X’s amenity by the planning permission. I would consider Mr X has experienced no significant personal injustice by the planning permission that would warrant investigation.
14. Furthermore, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

15. My decision is the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman