Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to read out the complainant’s objection statement 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. The error is unlikely to have affected the overall planning outcome, and the Council has already taken satisfactory action to address the administrative problems which occurred.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council failed to read out her objection statement at a Planning Committee meeting where a planning application for an adjacent residential development was being determined.
2. She says this meant the Committee was unaware of errors and inaccuracies in the Committee report, and prevented changes being made to the conditions attached to the planning permission. Mrs X says she feels angry and upset by having her democratic rights denied.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• the Council has already taken or proposes to take satisfactory action in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application and Planning Committee meeting on the Council’s website and YouTube channel.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is very upset that her statement was not read out at the Planning Committee.
7. The Council has apologised for this error, and for the disjointed nature of the subsequent complaints process. It has:
• committed to looking at risk mitigation measures to avoid overly full agendas creating pressures on the administration of such meetings.
• provided additional support and guidance to the officer involved.
• introduced an additional review process where a separate officer verifies that Committee preparations are completed without omission or error.
• said it would review and alter its complaints process to ensure complainants receive cohesive responses in the future.
8. I find these actions are a satisfactory way to address the administrative issues/errors which have arisen here, so the Ombudsman will not pursue this part of the complaint further.
9. Turning to the application itself, the Ombudsman’s main role is to consider whether the failure to read out Mrs X’s statement is likely to have affected the overall planning outcome. I find the outcome is likely to have been the same, so the injustice arising from the Council’s error is not considered to be significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing this part of the complaint either. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Highways, Urban Design, and Drainage Engineer consultees raised no objections subject to the use of conditions.
• The Committee report summarises Mrs X’s objections, and goes on to consider the material planning considerations.
• An objection statement from Mrs X’s husband was read out at the meeting, which raised concerns about the impact of the development on a culvert on their land. A condition has been attached to the planning permission which prevents works within 5m of the any drain/watercourse/pond unless approved by the Council.
• A photo was shown to the Committee showing Mrs X’s property relative to the dwelling to be demolished as part of the development, so it was aware of the existing character and appearance of the street.
• Although the report refers to incorrect separation distances between Mrs X’s property and the nearest proposed dwelling, the correct layout plan was presented to the Committee. In addition, the proposed orientation and separation distances are such that I would not have expected the proximity of the two properties to constitute a reason for refusing the application.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the injustice arising from the Council’s error is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement, and the Council is taking satisfactory action to address the administrative issues which arose.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman