Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way a planning application was considered at a Planning Committee meeting. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the determination process for his neighbour’s planning application was non-compliant with the Council’s ‘Procedures for public participation on agenda items’ and the ‘Local code for councillors and officers dealing with planning matters’. In particular, Mr X says:
• The planning officer’s report, update and presentation to the Planning Committee were heavily biased, incomplete, unbalanced, misleading and unfair.
• Committee Members were not reminded of the full set of outcome options available to them e.g. approve, refuse, defer, or delegate to the Head Planning.
• There was no summing-up or reply to the debate by the proposer and seconder prior to their motion to approve the application.
• One Committee Member had predetermined the application, and the Chairman should not have allowed them to propose the motion to approve or take part in the voting process.
2. Mr X also says his subsequent complaint did not go through all the stages of the Council’s complaints process, and it was initially considered by an officer involved in the Planning Committee meeting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. And 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, which consisted of their complaint correspondence.
7. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application and Planning Committee meeting (including the webcam recording) available on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant. In practice, this means we will consider whether any fault in the way the Council determined the application is likely to have affected the outcome. In other words, we consider what the outcome is likely to have been but for the fault.
9. I appreciate Mr X has identified several alleged procedural errors in the way the application was determined. But I am satisfied the application is still likely to have been approved but for these alleged faults.
10. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• The objections from residents and the Parish Council are summarised in the report and update to the Planning Committee.
• The proposed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area were presented to the Planning Committee.
• A representative for the objectors presented their concerns at the Planning Committee meeting.
• The Parish Council’s concerns were also presented at the meeting.
• The ‘Planning Assessment’ section of the report to the Planning Committee considers the material planning considerations (including the design of the proposal and its impact on the surrounding area, highways issues, the impact on neighbouring residential amenity, and flooding and drainage) and the planning officer reaches a professional judgement on these matters.
• The Committee members spent some time questioning the presenting officer and then discussing the key issues.
• The Council says this is an experienced Committee, so Members would have been aware they could propose an alternative motion if they did not agree with the report recommendation.
• Conditions relating to the use of obscure windows/balcony screens, and the submission of a surface water drainage scheme, were imposed on the planning permission.
11. As the outcome is likely to have been the same, I do not consider Mr X has suffered an injustice as a result of the alleged faults, so the Ombudsman will not consider them further.
12. As we are not investigating the substantive issues being complained about, we would not normally consider Mr X’s concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the Council’s decision on the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman