Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened at a planning committee meeting. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X has complained on behalf of Mr Y about what happened at a planning committee meeting. Miss X says the Council misled Mr Y’s representative regarding how long he would be allowed to speak at the meeting, and he did not have the opportunity to correct factually incorrect statements made about the applications. Miss X believes the decision to grant permission was flawed.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Miss X’s complaint on behalf of Mr Y and the Council’s responses. I invited Miss X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered her comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
5. Many councils allow members of the public to speak at planning committee meetings. However, there is no automatic right to speak, and most councils limit the length of time allowed for oral presentations.

What happened

6. The Council received a planning application and an application for listed building consent to build an underground car parking facility. It granted permission subject to conditions. A condition of both applications required the developer to submit details of the control panel for the private driveway to the Council for approval.
7. The developer submitted applications to discharge these conditions. The applications were referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination. A representative for Mr Y registered to speak at the meeting to raise his objections about both applications. The agenda for the meeting said Mr Y’s representative would be allowed three minutes to speak on one of the applications and would then share the time allocated for public speaking on the other application with another person. However, on the day of the meeting Mr Y’s representative was only given one and a half minutes to speak in total. Miss X says this prevented the speaker from properly raising his concerns and the outcome of the application may have been different had he had the opportunity to speak about both applications as he should have.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint about what happened at a planning committee meeting. This is because Mr Y has not suffered any significant injustice.
9. The Council allows members of the public to register to speak at committee meetings. Speakers are given three minutes to raise their objections and if more than one person registers to speak this time will be shared.
10. The Council has accepted the agenda for the meeting was misleading and the case officer wrongly told Mr Y’s representative he would have two opportunities to speak. It has apologised to Mr Y for this miscommunication. However, I cannot say Mr Y has been caused any significant injustice by the matter. Planning committee members were still aware of Mr Y’s concerns about the applications before voting to grant permission. His objections were available on the Council’s website before the meeting and addressed in the case officer’s reports. As the Council considered Mr Y’s objections before deciding the proposal was acceptable it is unlikely the planning decision would have been different had Mr Y’s representative been allowed more time to speak.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman