Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response. Mr Y has also not suffered significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. He says a recess during the committee meeting allowed for private discussions to be had by councillors about the merits of the application, which led to it being approved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council held a public committee meeting to discuss a planning application. Members of the public, including Mr Y, attended this.
6. During the meeting, a recess was held. The Council says that during the recess, councillors sought procedural advice but did not discuss the merits of the application.
7. Mr Y says the Council had previously rejected the application but narrowly approved it after the recess. The Council explained valid planning reasons must be given to refuse an application, therefore procedural advice on additional conditions was necessary in this case. The new planning application addressed concerns that led to it previously being rejected and the Council had to properly consider this.
8. The Council accepts that private discussions may have given a negative impression to the public but says no discussion about the merits of the application were held outside of the public session. The Council says it has taken learning from Mr Y’s complaint, and that any future recesses will be clearly explained at the time they are called, particularly when they relate to procedural advice. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response, and we would be unlikely to achieve anything further for Mr Y.
9. I understand Mr Y is unhappy that the planning application was approved. However, there is evidence from the committee report and minutes of the meeting that the material issues were properly considered. As the acceptability of the development was properly considered, it is likely that the planning decision would have still been the same even if the recess had been properly explained. Therefore, I do not consider Mr Y suffered significant personal injustice because of this.
10. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response. Mr Y has also not suffered significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman