Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to refuse to allow Mr X to speak at a planning committee meeting and about the way it considered his complaint. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about:
• the way the Council decided not to allow him to speak at a planning committee meeting; and
• how the Council considered his complaint.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X registered to speak at a planning committee meeting in March, about an application which was then deferred. He attended a later committee meeting in June when the application was reheard. However, the committee Chair decided not to allow him to speak as he had not registered to speak at the new committee meeting.
6. I understand Mr X says he was prevented from voicing his and his neighbour’s objections to the committee. However, the application was publicised and the neighbours, including Mr X, had the opportunity to make representations.
7. The Council’s adopted protocol for speaking at planning committee meetings states:

“Items which reach the Planning Committee but are then deferred before a decision is made. The Planning Committee may wish to defer consideration of a planning application to either seek further clarification/information from the applicant or to visit the site. When the matter is reported back to Committee the order of business will remain as set out in Paragraph 4 above. For the avoidance of doubt this means that the same speakers will be allowed to speak again. If the speaker is unavailable on the deferred date they may nominate a substitute to speak on their behalf.”

And

“Normally Planning Committee meetings are held every 3 weeks. The agenda for forthcoming meetings are published on the Council’s website a week in advance. The Committee will normally consider the application within 8 weeks of the date the application is registered, although this may be longer for larger applications. You are responsible for checking the website, or phoning the Council to find out when the application is to be considered. If you wish to make oral representations to the Committee you must then make a request either by letter, fax, email or by telephoning Committee Services BEFORE 5.00 pm on the Monday preceding the Wednesday Planning Committee. Where there is a Bank or Public Holiday in the intervening period the request must be received by 4.00 pm on the last working day before the Bank or Public Holiday.”

8. Mr X did not register to speak in line with the Council’s published arrangements. Therefore I have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to allow him to speak at the June planning committee meeting to justify an investigation.
9. I acknowledge that Mr X says he felt foolish when told he could not speak at the June meeting because he had not registered to do so. However, I do not consider this is a personal injustice which is so significant that it warrants an investigation.
10. Mr X also complains about the way the Council considered his complaint. We do not consider that any injustice on this point has caused a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to allow Mr X to speak at the planning committee meeting; and
• we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman