Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new house to be built next to their home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, X, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new house to be built next to their home. They say a Councillor on the Council’s planning committee failed to disclose the nature of their personal relationship with the applicant’s family at the meeting. They further say the Councillor had predetermined the application and influenced the questioning and debate. X also says the Committee failed to provide good reasons to overturn the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.
2. X says the development will harm their residential amenity and wants the planning permission revoked. X also wants the councillor admonished.

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
• 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 evidence provided by X and the information available on the Council’s planning website.
5. X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
7. I have reviewed the detailed minutes of the Planning Committee meeting and the recording from the meeting. At the beginning of the meeting two Councillor’s declared an interest for the relevant item. Councillor W noted they had dealt as a Ward Councillor with residents and applicants about previous applications on the site. They were not a member of the Planning Committee at the relevant time and had not been involved with the application in front of the Committee. Councillor Q declared a planning applicant lived in his ward. He said he had visited the applicant with a planning officer to help explain the reasons for previous refusals. Councillor Q confirmed he was predisposed towards the application but was not pre-determined.
8. Predisposition is where a Councillor holds a view in favour of or against an issue. But they have an open mind to the merits of an argument before making the final decision at a council meeting. Predetermination is where a councillor has a closed mind about the issue and has made a decision without taking all arguments or merits into account.
9. Councillor Q declared he was predisposed but not predetermined, therefore he was entitled to take part in the meeting and vote on the application.
10. The Planning Officer presented the report on the planning application to the Committee. This included their recommendation to refuse the application.
11. A member of the public spoke in objection to the application. The applicant and their son spoke in support of their application. The Committee asked them questions.
12. The Committee debated the merits of the case. Councillors voted on the officer recommendation to refuse the application. This vote was lost. However, this did not mean the application was approved.
13. Council officers provided advice on how to proceed with the application. The Committee voted to delegate the decision to approve the application subject to suitable conditions to officers. This vote was approved.
14. Officers later granted planning permission with conditions that:
• The materials to be used were to be approved by the Council before the development started.
• Certain windows in the new property should have obscure glazing and be fixed shut below a certain level; and
• A construction method plan must be submitted.
15. I understand X disagrees with the Committee’s decision to delegate the approval of the application to officers. However, this is a decision it is entitled to make. X highlights that the Committee did not provide reasons for making a different decision to the officer’s recommendation. I should explain that planning committees only have a statutory duty to give reasons where they refuse planning permission or impose conditions. There is also no statutory duty to give reasons when they grant planning permission unless it is an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) development. There is also no general common law duty to give reasons where they grant planning permission, but the duty will apply in some limited cases. In this case the Planning Committee voted to delegate the decision to approve the application with suitable conditions to officers.
16. X says the Committee did not follow the Planning Protocol set out in the Council’s Constitution when doing so. In summary, the relevant paragraphs set out that if the Committee makes an alternative decision to an officer recommendation, then a motion including the reasons must be raised and seconded. The Council has explained that this provision is primarily applied in the context of a decision where the officer recommendation is to grant planning permission but the Committee is minded to refuse. In such cases the Committee should outline its reasons as there is a substantial risk of appeal from the applicant. The Council considers the approach taken in the particular circumstances of this item was a reasonable application of the Chair exercising their discretion to manage the meeting effectively. I do not consider it is a proportionate use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources to investigate this particular element further as I see no benefit to X. Although the Chair could have ensured the reasons were formally captured, I note the debate ahead of the vote covered relevant planning considerations and Members had a different view of the impact of these to the officer recommendation ie that the proposal was broadly acceptable in planning terms subject to suitable conditions.
17. I also understand X believes Councillor Q should not have taken part in the meeting and had he not been present the Committee would have made a different decision. However, I cannot say this would have been the case. The Members all had details of the proposal available to them, including the planning history of the application site, before making their decisions.
18. X wants the planning permission revoked which is not something we can achieve. They also want Councillor Q investigated. Complaints about the conduct of councillors are subject to a separate complaints process and must be directed to the Council’s Monitoring Officer in the first instance.

Back to top

Decision

19. We will not investigate X’s complaint further. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council’s Planning Committee decided to delegate the decision to approve the planning application to its Officers. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome X is seeking.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman