Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council failed to follow the proper processes and the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination.
2. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his concerns about the conduct of a councillor. Mr X says there was a long delay before the Council responded to his complaint.

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:

• 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.

(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. Most of the Council’s planning decisions will be made by officers using their delegated authority. However, members of the Council can call an application that would normally be decided by officers into the planning committee. The member must give reasons for calling the application in and state whether the call-in request applies to an application the case officer has recommended for approval or refusal.
7. In this case, Mr X says the Council failed to follow the correct process as the application was determined by officers after two valid call-in requests were accepted. The Council says the application was not referred to the planning committee as one of the members withdrew their call-in request after the plans for the development were amended. The second call-in request only applied if the case officer recommended the application be refused.
8. Mr X disputes one of the call-in requests was withdrawn and says the application should have been referred to the committee. However, even if the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
9. I am satisfied the case officer’s report properly addressed the acceptability of the development including the impact on the area, before granting planning permission. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had the application gone to the committee for determination. Furthermore, Mr X does not live near the development site and has not suffered any personal injustice because of any alleged fault with how the application was dealt with.
10. Mr X is unhappy with how his complaint about the planning application was dealt with. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.
11. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint about the conduct of a councillor. However, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s concerns before deciding the complaint should not be investigated as the issues raised appeared to be politically motivated. I understand Mr X may disagree, but this was a decision the Monitoring Officer was entitled to make. The Monitoring Officer’s decision was also in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints.
12. There does seem to have been a delay before the Monitoring Officer responded to Mr X’s code of conduct complaint. But I do not consider that any injustice suffered by Mr X because of the delay would be significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman