Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. And the Council’s handling of the complainant’s concerns. We could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation. Also, there is insufficient injustice caused by any failure in the complaints process alone to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council:
• failed to provide evidence to support claims made by Officers at a planning committee meeting
• failed to follow the rules for public speaking at the planning committee
• failed to investigate his complaint fully; and
• follow its complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X objected to a planning application for a development of 21 houses close to his home. The objections, including those about parking during school run times, are summarised in the case officer report.
6. Mr X and four others spoke at the planning committee, detailing their objections to the proposal. The Chair of the committee ensured all those speaking in objection to the application spoke for no more than three minutes, according to the Council’s rules for public speaking.
7. Two people spoke jointly for support of the application for about four minutes. The Chair stated this was appropriate in the interests of fairness because of the number of those who spoke in objection.
8. As part of the presentation on the application, the committee were shown photographs of parking in the area at school drop off and collection times were shown, and an Officer reported what he had seen during a site visit. Mr X says the Officer did not provide evidence to support his claims and the objectors were not allowed to rebut his statements.
9. From the further information I have seen, we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council into the way it considered the planning application. The committee members were clear in what was being proposed. They heard from those against and in favour of the application. They asked questions and were able to see the full details of the objections received which are available on the Council’s website. I do not consider the extra minute that those in support of the application were allowed to speak swayed the decision-making process.
10. Mr X also complains the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure. However, we will not look at the way a complaint has been considered in isolation. We consider both the handling of the complaint and the substance of the original complaint. If we consider that the original complaint is not something that we would in its own right investigate, then we will not investigate the complaint about the complaints process. This is because we do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant as a result of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation. Also, there is insufficient injustice caused by any failure in the complaints process alone to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman