Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of and the planning committee’s decision on an application for a development opposite his house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s or committee’s processes to justify us investigating. Even if there were fault by the Council or the committee, the matter has not caused significant personal injustice to Mr X which would warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the planning process followed to consider and determine an application for a new development across the road from his house. He complains:
1. the Council failed to notify residents of the planning application by letter;
2. the Council and its planning committee failed to give a fair hearing to his and others’ objections;
3. the planning committee chair did not call for a site visit;
4. the committee’s chair allowed some of its Members to abstain.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• read relevant online planning documents;
• viewed the planning committee’s online consideration of the application;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says the Council did not notify residents by letter about the application. The Council placed two site notices advising of the application. The evidence shows Mr X made written objections within the consultation period, along with other parties. So even if there were fault by the Council in how it notified residents of the application, there is not enough evidence its process resulted in any loss of opportunity to Mr X to object. There was no injustice to Mr X from the Council’s notification methods for the application, so there are no grounds for us to investigate this issue.
6. Mr X considers the Council and committee failed to give him and the other objectors a fair hearing. In respect of the Council, its role was to produce a report to put before the committee. The report summarises the objections and other comments its officers received from formal consultees and members of the public. Where those objections raised material planning issues, such as impact on amenity of existing properties, highways and site access issues, the report responded to them. The Council’s planning report appropriately included and responded to the objections Mr X and others raised about the application.
7. Mr X also considers the committee did not give a fair hearing to objections. I have watched the relevant committee meeting, which was held online. Mr X spoke at the meeting as an objector and was given the opportunity to make his points to the decision-makers, adding to or emphasising his written objections as he wished. The committee also had before it the officer’s report, including its summary and responses to objectors’ views. Mr X and fellow objectors had the appropriate opportunities to express their opposition to the application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the committee’s process here to justify us investigating.
8. I realise Mr X disagrees with the recommendation to grant the permission that officers made in the report, and with the decision of the planning committee. But it is not fault for a council or committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Mr X considers it was wrong that the planning committee chair did not call for a site visit. There is no requirement within the planning process for a committee to undertake a site visit. Once an application reaches the committee stage, its Members are required to assess whether they have sufficient information to decide the application. The chair invited Members to give their views several times during the meeting. It was open to any committee Member, if they felt a visit was necessary before they could reach their view, to propose a motion for a visit to be organised. The committee could then have voted on that motion and proceeded in line with the outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault in the committee’s process here to warrant us investigating.
10. Mr X believes the planning committee chair should not have allowed Members to abstain. The chair cannot demand a Member casts a for or against vote. They are entitled to abstain. In any event, if the chair had done what Mr X wanted, it could not have altered the committee’s decision to grant the permission, even if the abstainers had voted against. The Members who voted in favour of the officer’s recommendation to permit the application would still have prevailed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s or planning committee’s assessment and decision-making processes to justify us investigating; and
• even if there were fault by the Council or the committee here, it has not caused significant personal injustice to Mr X which would warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman