Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to investigate a councillor whose actions led to the imposition of an additional condition on the planning permission granted to her. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains that a local councillor singled out her planning application and applied a condition to it that is not normally applied to householder applications. She says the Council has failed to investigate her complaint against the councillor about this. She says she has suffered considerable delays to the work as a result of the condition and seeks financial compensation.

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. ( 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 Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X submitted a planning application to extend her residential property. The application was called into Committee to be determined by members. The officer report recommended granting permission with various conditions attached.
5. At the Committee meeting a councillor proposed an additional condition related to the requirement of a building scheme to be submitted and approved prior to the start of work. By a majority, the Committee decided to grant permission with the additional condition included.
6. Unhappy with the inclusion of the building scheme condition, Ms X made a complaint to the Council about the actions of the councillor who had proposed it. Ms X said the councillor had discriminated against her and had failed to make a decision based on the merits of the application. She said other permissions for similar developments in her area had not been subject to the same condition and that had it not been proposed by the councillor, the other councillors at the meeting may have not included it. She said she felt she had had to comply with the unreasonable condition, rather than appealing against it, to avoid further delay.
7. In accordance with usual procedures, the Council considered Ms X’s complaint. However, it decided no further action was required and explained the councillor, by proposing a further condition beyond those already recommended by officers, had not breached the Code of Conduct. It found no evidence that Ms X had been discriminated against.

Assessment

8. We do not offer a right of appeal against a council’s decision on member conduct complaints. While we can consider if there was fault in the way the council considered the complaint, we will not do so unless there is sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement or we consider it in the public interest to do so.
9. In this case, the Council considered Ms X’s complaint but found no breach of the Code of Conduct for Members and no evidence to support a claim of discrimination. The councillor, a member of the Committee, was entitled to express their views and propose an additional condition to that recommended by officers. This was accepted and approved by the majority of members in the normal way.
10. As Ms X is aware, had she wanted to challenge the condition, she could have appealed against it to the Planning Inspectorate which is the body charged with determining such appeals.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Ms X says the planning officer and some other councillors at the meeting pointed out that a building scheme condition is not usually attached to permission for a householder application. While this is noted, in this case a majority of the Committee voted to accept the proposal put forward by the councillor and the planning officer confirmed that such a condition could be imposed, even though it was unusual. That other similar householder applications received permission without this condition is not evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of the complaint made against the councillor.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman