Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its own procedure when it decided not to read out written statements at a committee meeting from objectors to a planning application. We will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says by not reading out written statements from him and other objectors to a planning application the Council did not do what it said it would do and failed to follow its own procedure. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint about this matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In changes brought about by the pandemic and the use of “virtual” meetings, the Council decided it would read out the written statements of those who wished to address its Planning Committee but did not want to appear “live” before it.
7. Mr X provided a written statement and was told it would be read out. However, when the meeting was held, the Chair and Vice-Chair decided, given the number of written statements received, that they would not read out the individual statements. They took this decision to ensure the efficient running of the meeting and after taking legal advice.
8. Unhappy with this decision, Mr X complained to the Council. It acknowledged Mr X had expected his statement to have been read out and apologised that this did not happen. It explained why this was the case and it did not accept it had given him false and misleading information as at the time he had been told his statement would be read out, this had been the intention.
9. While I understand Mr X was disappointed his statement was not read out, all the objections and written statements were provided to members of the committee and available for them to see. A summary of them was also made in the officer report. As this was the case, I do not consider Mr X suffered any significant injustice because his statement was not read out at the meeting.
10. Mr X also complains about the way his complaint about this matter was handled but we will not generally investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue and I see no grounds which warrants doing so here.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says he has suffered an injustice because a planning decision was taken which will provide a large number of new homes on green belt land. However, the grant of planning permission cannot be said to be the result of the written statements not having been read out. The comments and objections contained in them were considered as part of the planning process and were available for members of the committee to see. I do not share his view that the decision not to read out the statements is evidence of pre-determination of the planning decision by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman