Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Officers pressured planning committee Members to achieve a favourable outcome for the applicant. From the information we have seen it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains Council Officers pressured Members of the Council’s planning committee to change their reasons for refusing a planning application to manipulate a favourable outcome for the applicant.
2. He wants the approval of his neighbour’s planning application withdrawn.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X including the Council’s responses to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s neighbour has made several applications to build new homes on part of his back garden. These have been refused for various reasons.
7. The neighbour then submitted an application to build a single property and made changes to address the reasons for previous refusals.
8. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at its development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations are about the use and development of the land in the public interest and include 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.
9. I have reviewed the Planning Officer’s report on the application put in by Mr X’s neighbour. This includes the objections received, the planning history of the site and relevant planning policy. The report was presented to the planning committee. Mr X addressed the committee, advising Members of his objections.
10. There is no recording of the committee meeting available, so I cannot definitively confirm one way or another that Officers pressured Members.
11. However, from the evidence available, including the Planning Officer’s report and the committee meeting minutes, there is no evidence of the alleged pressure on Members from any officer. Mr X also says some committee members stated they had not read the planning application. However, this is not reflected in the minutes.
12. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area and neighbours, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the objections received and addressed their concerns. The minutes show Members debated the application, and it was approved with the Chairman using their casting vote.
13. Mr X wants the removal of a permission which has already been given. We cannot order a council or an applicant to do what he wants them to do. That we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have seen no evidence to substantiate Mr X’s complaint that Officers pressured Members during a planning committee meeting.
15. If Mr X believes any Member failed to read the planning application before taking part in the vote, he can complain to the Council about the conduct of the specific Councillor.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman