Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how it made and recorded its decision to reduce public speaking time at its planning committee meetings, and how it handled his complaint. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the key outcome Mr X wants from his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s decision to reduce public speaking time from five to three minutes per speaker at its planning committee meetings. He complains the Council:
1. did not follow proper procedure to make the decision;
2. did not make and keep appropriate records of the decision process;
3. cannot demonstrate it made the decision in line with its constitution;
4. made no assessment of the decision’s impact on public participation;
5. failed to independently consider his complaint.
2. Mr X says the matter has left him unable to understand how or why the Council reduced the time limit. He says he has been caused uncertainty and has lost confidence that the decision was made lawfully and transparently. Mr X says the Council’s complaint handling meant he had to spend time pursuing the matter by making information requests and complaining further.
3. Mr X wants the Council to:
• acknowledge the procedural failings in how the decision was made;
• remake the decision in accordance with its constitution, with proper consultation, evidence, and transparency;
• reconsider whether the reduction in speaking time is justified and whether alternative arrangements would better support public participation;
• ensure future complaint reviews are done independently of the service being investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his complaint does not challenge the Council’s right to change its planning committee procedures, including speaking time limits. He complains about the way officers made the change. The Council has recognised some of the stages in the decision were not recorded but has stated this was not a requirement for the delegated officer when making the procedural change. It is satisfied the officer, after consultation with relevant elected Members of the committee, was entitled to make and issue the decision.
7. Even if there has been fault by the Council here, we will not investigate. The main impact from the Council’s decision on Mr X or any other member of the public who wants to speak at planning committee meetings is the reduction in their time to do so. Mr X does not claim that as a personal injustice. If he were to make that claim, it would not be a sufficiently significant injustice to warrant us investigating. After its decision to reduce the time for spoken representations, the Council’s planning process provides Mr X and the wider public with opportunities to engage with it. There is no statutory duty on planning authorities requiring them to allow public comments at committee meetings. Any provision for this is additional to councils’ duties as planning authorities.
8. Mr X’s claimed injustices are loss of confidence in the Council and uncertainty about its decision-making process and its reasons for the decision. We recognise Mr X would have preferred the Council to have recorded and publicised greater detail about its process. But that uncertainty and impact on his confidence in the Council is not sufficiently significant personal injustice to justify us investigating, so we will not do so.
9. The key practical outcomes Mr X wants from the Council from his complaint is for officers to remake the decision about speaking time limits and reassess its impacts on public engagement with planning. We cannot order councils to remake and reassess procedural decisions. That we cannot achieve the key outcomes Mr X wants from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.
10. Mr X has also complained about the way the Council investigated his complaint, which he considers lacked independence. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the key outcome he wants from his complaint; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman