Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the planning committee meeting was badly handled and conducted unfairly. He says the decision to approve the application was flawed and the development will have a significant impact on neighbouring properties. Mr X says the planning permission should be revoked.

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:

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

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.

What happened

5. The Council received a planning application from Mr X’s neighbour to extend their property. There had been previous applications for the site. However, some of the approved applications contained conflicting elements. The developer sought to resolve this by submitting an application for all the intended works. Mr X objected to the proposal and the application was referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination. The committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement.
6. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with the application. He says the planning committee meeting was poorly managed and speakers for the other applications being considered were given longer periods to speak and allowed to submit further comments during the meeting. Mr X says members of the public speaking against his neighbour’s application were not given the same opportunities. He says the chair of the planning committee was bias and unprepared. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his amenity and the permission should be revoked.
7. The Council accepts the planning committee was not well managed and speakers for the other applications were given more opportunity to raise their objections. The Council has apologised and said training will be arranged to prevent this happening again. However, it says Mr X’s neighbour’s application was properly considered.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. This is because Mr X has not been caused any significant injustice.
9. The Council’s rules for speaking at planning committee meetings say that people who have registered to speak will be given three minutes to raise their objections. They will not be allowed to ask members, the case officer, or other speakers any questions.
10. In this case, one resident registered to speak at the committee meeting on behalf of the neighbours objecting to the application. The speaker was given the opportunity to raise his concerns in line with the Council’s rules for speaking at committee meetings. I understand speakers for the other applications being considered were given additional opportunities to raise their concerns. However, while the Council has accepted this should not have happened, I cannot say this had any impact on Mr X’s neighbour’s planning application.
11. Furthermore, regardless of the problems during the committee meeting, I am satisfied the Council did still properly consider if the proposal was acceptable before approving the application. The impact on residential amenity was addressed in the case officer’s report and the matter was discussed during the committee meeting before members voted to grant permission. Therefore, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as it is unlikely the handling of the committee meeting impacted the planning decision.
12. Mr X has raised concerns about the actions of the planning committee chair. However, if Mr X is concerned that a councillor has breached the code of conduct, he can complain to the Council’s Monitoring Officer as this is the process for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman