Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application for a new property close to the complainant’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new house to be built on a plot close to his home.
2. He says a councillor was predetermined, that he knew the applicants and was connected to them socially and through political local work. He says the councillor did not remove himself from the meeting and went on to influence the meeting leading to the decision to grant planning permission.
3. Mr X also complains the Council failed to consider his complaint correctly.
4. Mr X wants the planning permission revoked and the councillor investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I have watched the recording of the planning committee meeting. At the beginning of the meeting a Councillor Q declared a planning applicant lived in his ward. He said he had discussed her intentions to develop the site and had visited her home. Councillor Q confirmed he was predisposed towards the application but was not pre-determined.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Councillor Q declared he was predisposed but not predetermined, therefore he was entitled to take part in the meeting and vote on the application.
12. The Planning Officer presented the report on the planning application to the Committee. This included their recommendation to refuse the application.
13. The applicant and their son spoke in support of their application. The Committee asked them questions. A member of the public spoke in objection to the application.
14. 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.
15. Council officers provided advice on how to proceed with the application. The Committee voted to delegate the decision to approve the application with suitable condition to officers. This vote was approved.
16. 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.
17. I understand Mr 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.
18. I also understand Mr 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. All bar one of the committee members voted to refuse the Planning Officer’s recommendation. The Members had all the details of the proposal available to them, including the planning history of the application site, before making their decisions.
19. Mr X wants the planning permission revoked which is not something we can achieve.
20. He also wants 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.
21. I understand Mr X is also concerned about the way the Council considered his complaint.
22. We consider it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. 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.
24. Also we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman