Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application because the planning application has not yet been decided and so any injustice is speculative.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way a planning application was considered at a Planning Committee meeting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says that a Planning Committee meeting failed to properly consider the Council’s own policy when determining a planning application for a number of houses.
6. It is well established law that, what is said during committee debate should not generally be used as evidence of a decision’s reasons. The courts will only intervene if there is clear evidence that shows a committee was misled. When making this decision, the courts will consider evidence such as:
7. the documents considered by the committee;
8. the wording of the decision itself; and
9. the minutes of the meeting.
10. The reasons the courts have given for taking this approach include the following:
11. It is often impossible to determine the motives for statements made by committee members, and how, in turn, these statements influence other decision makers.
12. The role of Council committee members is to act as the public voice in decision-making. The analysis of committee discussion by the courts, might appear like interference in political debate.
13. While members receive some training on policy and legal matters, we cannot expect them to have relevant qualifications or professional experience, so they may occasionally make statements that are not relevant or legally correct.
14. If the comments of individual committee members were readily subject to legal challenge, it is unlikely that many committee decisions would stand.
15. The planning application has not yet been determined and so any final outcome is speculative. The Ombudsman would not investigate a complaint unless there was clear evidence of injustice to warrant such investigation.
16. For these reasons, the Ombudsman would not investigate this complaint. Ms X may make a further complaint to us if the planning permission is granted but should bear in mind the points made above.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is no clear injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman