Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council’s planning meeting. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking, and we do not consider an investigation would lead to a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its protocol for speaking at planning committee meetings.
2. He wants the Council to admit the failure to follow protocol meant the way the Council considered the planning application was unfair and biased. He wants it to apologise and withdraw the planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. The Council’s protocol for speaking at planning meetings states that normally only one member of the public can speak in support of an application and one against. Both may speak for three minutes each.
7. The Council says at the meeting, which is the source of Mr X’s complaint, the Chairman extended the three minutes to three and a half minutes for both speakers following a request from the representative of the objectors. Only one person spoke in support of the application, and one against, and each was allowed the same time to address the Committee.
8. The protocol states that members of the Committee can ask questions of both speakers, after their presentations. Again, this is what happened at this meeting. The Council acknowledges the applicant’s representative did seek to have some of his colleagues who were present respond to detailed questions from Councillors within their areas of expertise. However, the Chairman allowed this reluctantly to ensure the facts requested by Members was provided. It also accepts more time was spent questioning the applicant, rather than the objector, however this is not unusual as only the applicant or their representative can answer questions about the application.
9. The Council confirms the Chairman has discretion in how a meeting is conducted and exercised this in the interests of ensuring that the Committee was able to receive accurate information in response to their questions. It believes this was in the best interests of good decision making.
10. I am satisfied that only one person was allowed to present to the committee. The applicant can bring whomever they like to the meeting – that does not mean they were permitted to speak – they were not. However, in response to the Committee Member’s questions the applicant asked their colleagues to make detailed responses. The Chairman allowed the individuals to respond to questions to ensure the Committee had the necessary information to make a decision on the application.
11. The minutes of the meeting show the objectors’ concerns were clearly expressed. I do not agree the Council allowed more than one person to present in favour of the application. The minutes show one person presented to the Committee in support of the application and one person spoke against it. The Chairman allowed different people to respond to specific questions asked by Committee Members after the presentations. I cannot be certain that the Committee would have come to a different decision had only one person provided the answers to the Committee Member’s questions.
12. Mr X wants the planning permission revoked and the application sent back to the Planning Committee. This is not something we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Having reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council; and the information available on the Council’s website I do not consider an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning application, therefore we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman