Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to reject his complaint about the behaviour of councillors, made in connection with the refusal of his planning application. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council is at fault in rejecting his complaint about the behaviour of named councillors at a Planning Committee meeting which, against officer recommendation, voted to refuse permission for his application.

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:

• 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
• 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

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and gave him the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B submitted a planning application to retain a structure he had erected. Against officer recommendation, the Planning Committee voted to refuse permission. The Council issued an enforcement notice seeking either the removal of the construction or the lowering of its height.
5. Mr B made a complaint to the Council’s Monitoring Officer about the conduct of particular councillors who objected to his application.
6. The Monitoring Officer considered the matter and consulted with the Independent Person who reviewed the complaint in full. Having done so, the Monitoring Officer decided to take no further action and set out the reasons for the decision. The Officer noted Mr B intended to pursue a planning appeal against the planning decision.
7. Subsequently, the Planning Inspector allowed Mr B’s appeal, quashing the enforcement notice and granting planning permission for the construction.

Assessment

8. Mr B has complained about the conduct of councillors in relation to the refusal of his planning application. By law, we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to the Planning Inspector who acts on behalf of the responsible government minister.
9. The substantive issue, therefore, falls outside our jurisdiction and I have seen no grounds which would warrant an investigation of any secondary matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman