Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council showed predetermination or bias when considering a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council showed predetermination and bias when considering a planning application. Mr X also complains the Council’s complaint response did not answer all his complaints.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr X has said in his complaint and the Council’s response. I have also considered Mr X’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council’s Planning Committee held a meeting to consider an application to build a housing development. The Planning Committee voted to approve the application. Mr X complains the Council showed predetermination and bias in reaching their decision. Mr X also complains the Council did not address all his complaints when it responded to him and did not explain at which stage of the complaints procedure his complaint was.
5. Mr X complains the Planning Committee did not fully consider the health and safety concerns raised by several objections to the development and did not carry out a site visit as requested.
6. Mr X says the Councillor who proposed approval of the application was the only Councillor to vote for it without raising any concerns. This Councillor resigned shortly after the meeting. Mr X says the Council must have been aware the Councillor was going to resign. He says if the Council had agreed to carry out a site visit, the Councillor would not have been able to take part in subsequent planning meetings.
7. Mr X says the Councillor who seconded the vote of approval did so despite being unhappy with the application.
8. The Council says three Councillors approved the application. It says one of these Councillors was disqualified from being a member of the Council before the Planning Committee hearing took place. However, the Council says it only became aware of this after the meeting. It says it has taken legal advice about the validity of the Councillor’s decision and under section 82 Local Government Act 1972 it is valid. The Council says several Councillors abstained from voting, but no Councillors voted against the application.
9. Information about the Councillor’s circumstances which disqualified them from being a member of the Council was made public on the day of the Planning Committee meeting. Mr X says he therefore does not understand how the Council was unaware of the issue prior to the meeting.
10. There is no evidence to show the Council was aware of the Councillor’s circumstances prior to the Planning Committee meeting. Although this information was published on the same date as the meeting, this is not evidence the Council was aware of it prior to the meeting. The Council says it became aware of this information the following day. There is no evidence to dispute this.
11. The Planning Officer’s report recommended the Planning Committee approve the application, but this is not evidence of predetermination or bias. The Planning Officer assessed the application, considered the objections and presented its recommendations to the Committee. The report addressed the objections including health and safety concerns about the temporary construction and sales entrances.
12. Mr X says the Councillor who seconded the vote of approval said they were not happy with the application but could see no reason to reject it. I do not consider this to be evidence of predetermination or bias. Instead, this indicates that the Councillor considered the application on its merits before voting.
13. Although one of the Councillors resigned after the meeting, it is unlikely the outcome of the vote would have been different if that Councillor had not voted, or their vote was deemed invalid. This is because none of the Councillors voted against the application.
14. Mr X says the Planning Committee needed ten members to be present; published information shows there are eleven committee members and a quorum is one quarter or a minimum of four members. He also says had the Councillor who was disqualified not been permitted to attend, the vote would have been invalid if there were insufficient members. Mr X also says the Council has assumed an alternative member would not have objected to the proposal. The Ombudsman cannot speculate how an alternative member may have voted. It is noted however that the meeting was quorate and no members of the Planning Committee voted against the proposal.
15. Mr X says he asked for a site visit to address his concerns about the access points to the site. It is for the Committee to decide in each case whether it considers a site visit necessary in order to decide an application. Here, the planning application contained detailed information about the site. The Council says although drawings of the site may not have been specifically pointed out at the meeting, they were presented. The Committee decided a site visit was not required but this is not evidence of predetermination or bias.
16. Mr X has asked that the planning application is placed on hold and that a different local authority reviews an appeal against the application. However, planning permission has been granted so there is no longer any application to put on hold. Nor does the law give Mr X or any third party a right to appeal against a grant of planning permission.
17. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. An investigation is therefore not warranted.
18. Mr X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint-handling. This issue stems from the substantive complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman