Summary: Mr X complains a Council officer tried to push through a planning permission. he says the officer also failed to prepare accurate minutes, and resisted Councillors attempts to correct them. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has not yet granted planning permission and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X complains a planning officer tried to influence the planning committee by withholding crucial information. And trying to focus the meeting on design features only when considering a sale of Council property.
2. Mr X says he went to much trouble to correct the Council error and ensure it considers the planning application fairly.
3. He wants:
• the officer disciplined and removed from any involvement with the planning application; and
4. public documents corrected

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complains complains about the conduct of an officer related to a planning application.
9. The Council’s response to the complaint recognises the case officer report contained errors. However, it denies the officer present at the Planning Committee Meeting tried to push through the application. It confirmed that officers cannot make decisions on applications being considered by the Committee.
10. I understand Mr X has spent time following the application and complaining about identified errors. He says Committee members could have decided to refuse planning permission. But because the Officer deliberately intervened the Committee decided to defer the decision. He also says if he had not pursued the planning application, the Council may have approved the application.
11. However, no decision has been made. The Committee will consider a fresh report on the application. Mr X may attend the meeting and voice his objections. Therefore I consider any injustice is insufficient to warrant our involvement.
12. Also, Mr X wants a specific officer removed from the application process. We cannot involve ourselves in personnel matters, and therefore cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. Any injustice is not sufficient to warrant our involvement. Also, further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. And we cannot direct the Council to remove an officer from a planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman