Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council’s planning committee cast five votes to approve a planning application for a new school and five votes to refuse, the Chair abstaining.
2. He complains that as the vote was tied, the Chair referred to the National Planning Policy Framework which says extra weight should be given to the need to create, expand or alter schools. He then used his casting vote to approve the application.

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.

(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 discussed the matter with him.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because as the Chair is entitled to use their casting vote, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman