Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed before deciding to approve a planning application in the village where the complainant lives. We do not consider the complainant has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X complains the Council:
• delayed in publishing the Planning Officer report until the date of the planning committee meeting
• the report contained errors on the comments from the Highway Team
• posted the decision the same day thereby not allowing residents to complain; and
• delayed in posting minutes which were incomplete
2. Mr X says the decision is a possible precedent for allow future building in the village.

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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council confirmed the Planning Officer’s report was uploaded with Planning Committee agenda ten days before the Committee meeting. This is in line with the calendar on the Council’s website.
7. Once a planning decision is made there is no third party right of appeal. There is no fault in the publication of the decision on the date it was made.
8. The Council confirms it usually publishes minutes with the agenda for the following Committee meeting. In this case the meeting was in July, so the minutes should have been published with the August agenda. However, in this case, there was a delay because of staff leave during August and the September meeting was cancelled. Therefore, the minutes were published with the agenda for the October meeting. While this is outside the usual period for publication, the minutes were published and approved at the October Planning Committee meeting. I do not consider this delay caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.
9. The minutes are not expected to be a word for word record of the meeting. The published minutes show:
• the proposed application
• those who spoke
• a summary of the comments made by the speaker; and
• the decision made.

I have seen no evidence of fault in the published minutes.

10. The Council confirms that the Highways Team communicated with the Planning Officer via email. It says going forward it will recommend that any re-consultation comments are made formally and are published on the Council’s website for inspection.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because his claimed injustice is the decision to approve the planning application may lead to a precedent to allow future building in the village where he lives. Local Planning Authorities are required to consider the planning applications they receive on their merits, according to national and local planning policies and other relevant material planning considerations.
12. We consider complaints about service fault which has caused significant personal injustice to the complainant. I do not consider that a possible precent for future development in his village is sufficient injustice to Mr X which warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman