Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not follow its scheme of delegation when determining a planning application. We have found fault with the Council for failing to consult the relevant ward member. This caused Mr X frustration, but we do not consider that the outcome of the application would have been any different but for the fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not follow correct procedure when it determined a planning application near his house. He said the Council did not adhere to its Scheme of Delegation and the decision should have been made at Planning Committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint and have spoken to him about it.
5. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Scheme of delegation

7. The Council’s Officer Scheme of Delegation sets out the ways in which officers of the Council can make decisions and which decisions they have power to make.
8. The Scheme states that the Executive Director of Place has the power to determine any planning application except those excluded. This includes
• applications that Members and /or a parish council has made representation on, and
• the representation is received in time, contains material planning considerations and is contrary to the proposed decision of officer, and
• the nominated officer in consultation with the chair/vice chair of planning committee and the ward member where the application site is situated, considers ought to be referred to planning committee for determination.

Scheme of nomination

9. The cascade principle under which the Scheme operates means that any Officer given a power (whether expressly set out in the scheme or otherwise) can nominate other Officers to exercise those powers. The Local Scheme of Nomination sets out which functions have been nominated by the Executive Director of Place.
10. These functions include the determination of planning applications nominated to a Senior Planning Officer. This excludes the determination of whether a planning application should be referred to planning committee where the nominated officer is the Development Management Area Manager. If the Chair or Vice Chair or relevant ward member has requested that the item goes to committee, the nominated officer shall be the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement.

Summary

11. The Nominated Officer (Head of Planning/Service Manager for Development Management/Development Management Area Manager) makes the decision whether an application should be considered by the Planning Committee. The decision is made following consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the area Planning Committee and Ward Member(s) of the ward within which the application is located. The request of one Ward Member would be considered alongside the merits of the case; it would not automatically result in the application being heard by the Committee.

What happened

12. In March 2022, the Council received a planning application to demolish buildings and erect 5 detached dwellings. The site is next door to Mr X’s property.
13. The application form was accompanied by a completed Certificate B which confirmed that a notice had been served on the occupants of the house next door to Mr X. The Council said there was no mention of a boundary dispute between Mr X and the applicant during the application process.
14. The Council carried out a public consultation. Ms X and 15 others submitted comments on the application. The Parish Council objected to the plans. This triggered the Council’s Scheme of Delegation consultation.
15. The Council carried out the Scheme of Delegation consultation. The form included a summary of the Parish Council’s representation. The Council consulted the Chair and Vice-Chair of planning committee. But not the relevant ward member. The Council acknowledged this was a mistake.
16. Mr X said his ward member objected to the development via the Parish Council. Therefore, Mr X said if his ward member had been consulted correctly under the scheme of delegation, he would have requested that planning committee determine the application.
17. The Planning Committee Chair said the application should be a delegated decision. The ‘nominated officer’ noted the concerns raised by the Parish Council but considered that the objections were adequately addressed in the officer’s report. They also noted that there had been no other requests by Council Members to refer the application to planning committee and overall, in their view, it was an appropriate application to determine under delegated powers.
18. The Council approved the application in October 2023.
19. Mr X said, if the application had been considered at planning committee, the issue of the boundary dispute would have meant the decision would be deferred due to inaccurate information.

My findings

20. The scheme of delegation required the Council to consult with the Chair and Vice Chair of planning committee and any relevant ward members. The Council admitted that it failed to consult with the ward member about whether planning committee should determine the application. This was fault.
21. The impact of this fault, however, is difficult to determine.
22. Mr X said that if the ward member had been consulted, he would have asked for it to go to planning committee. I have seen no evidence to support this statement.
23. Even if the ward member had requested planning committee, it would have been considered alongside the merits of the case; it would not automatically result in the application being heard by the Committee.
24. If the application had gone to planning committee, there is no evidence to suggest that the members would have voted to refuse it, against the officer recommendations. As part of my investigation, I discovered that during 2023, Council members (for this planning committee) only overturned 10% of officer recommendations.
25. Mr X said that Members would have deferred the decision at planning committee due to the boundary dispute. Again, there is no evidence that this would have been the case.

Conclusion

26. The Council was at fault when it did not consult a ward member in line with its scheme of delegation. The Council has acknowledged this.
27. However, there are too many variables that would have needed to change for the outcome of the application to have been different. Therefore, on balance, I do not consider that the fault caused Mr X a significant injustice.
28. I recognise that the fault caused Mr X frustration and the Council has agreed to apologise for failing to consult the ward member. The Council has given assurances that processes are now in place to ensure that the scheme of delegation is followed accurately.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for failing to consult his ward member as part of it scheme of delegation consultation.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation. I have found the Council at fault for failing to consult a ward member as part of its scheme of delegation consultation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman