Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council manages the decision-making of the Planning Committee. There is insufficient evidence of procedural fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is failing to ensure the Planning Committee makes decisions in accordance with its own planning policies, national planning legislation and relevant guidance.
2. He says the Committee’s poor decisions undermine the quality, character and heritage of the area, and are creating uncertainty, damaging public trust and increasing the risk of unlawful outcomes. The lack of effective intervention and governance is allowing developments that conflict with professional advice and statutory requirements, leading to financial harm to the Council and long-term negative effects on the district's environment and communities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. And in relation to the second and third bullet point, 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 by the Council.
6. We do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community issue about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• the Council’s scheme of delegation.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I appreciate Mr X might be unhappy about the Planning Committee’s decisions on various planning applications in the Council’s area.
9. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. And our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or to tell it how to operate its services.
10. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. I consider there is insufficient evidence of procedural fault in the way the Council has determined the applications, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the Council appears to have followed its scheme of delegation when making decisions on planning applications.
• the officer’s recommendation is set out in a report to the Planning Committee, but Members are entitled to reach their own judgement on the material planning considerations and the weight given to these in the overall planning balance.
• the decisions of the Committee are recorded through published minutes and decision notices, including departures from the officer recommendation.
12. In addition, and with reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, we target our limited investigation resources not based on points of principle, but instead on where we will have the most impact to remedy significant personal injustices caused to complainants. I have seen nothing to suggest Mr X has been caused a specific or tangible significant personal injustice by the decisions on the applications, so we would not start an investigation for this reason too.
13. And if Mr X believes any members of the Committee have breached the Code of Conduct he may submit a standards complaint to the Council’s Monitoring Officer. Any allegations of corruption should be made to the Police.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of that fault by the Council has caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman