Summary: Mr X complains Council officers failed to provide correct advice and information to the planning sub-committee. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for himself and his neighbours Mr & Mrs Y and Mrs Z. He says a council officer failed to advise the planning sub -committee chairman that he should give another committee member opportunity to find a seconder for her motion to refuse his neighbour’s planning application
2. He also complains a planning officer gave the sub-committee wrong information about the dates she had seen the site notice displayed.
3. Mr X wants the planning process reviewed by an independent body such as the Planning Inspectorate.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• 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 considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. Mr X, Mr & Mrs Y and Mrs Z had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a building to use as an office and physiotherapy treatment room, on land next to his home.
7. The Council publicised the application and Mr X, Mr & Mrs Y and Mrs Z objected.
8. The planning sub-committee decided to defer the application to allow members to visit the application site.
9. After the site visit, the application was again considered by the sub-committee. Following a discussion about the application a Councillor proposed a motion to refuse the application. As the motion was not seconded, the Chairman moved on to a proposal to approve the application. This was seconded, voted on and approved.
10. Mr X complained to the Council that the officer who advises the sub-committee had not advised the chairman to give the original councillor a ‘fair opportunity’ to find a seconder for her proposal to refuse the application. Instead allowing the matter to move swiftly to the next Councillor who proposed a motion to approve the application.
11. The Council told Mr X there is no obligation on the officer or chairman to give a councillor an opportunity to find a seconder. It also says its sub-committee members are all experienced councillors and are aware that a motion must be seconded before it can be voted on.
12. Mr X also complained that a planning officer has given the sub-committee the wrong dates when referring to the site notice. The Council apologised for this minor error but confirmed the application was advertised correctly according to its code of practice for planning publicity.
13. Mr X disagrees with the Council. He says first saw the notice five days before the end of the consultation period. I cannot give a definitive answer as to when the site notice was displayed. However, the fact is that Mr X and his neighbour did see it and were able to object. They sent written objections to the Council and attended the sub-committee meetings. Therefore, I do not consider the issue of the dates the site notice was on display to have caused him any injustice.

Assessment

14. I understand Mr X and his neighbours do not agree with the Council’s decision to approve the planning application. However, having reviewed the information provided, including the documents available on the planning pages of the Council’s website and sub-committee minutes I consider it unlikely that further investigation would add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome. And as there is no third-party right of appeal against a planning application, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in paragraph 14.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman