Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s Planning Committee considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the conduct of a planning committee meeting. She says the Council:
• restricted the number of speakers against an application
• advised speakers at short notice that a meeting was cancelled
• conducted the meeting with poor time management; and
• rushed the discussion of an application and failed to consider parking issues.
2. She wants the Council to revoke the application and consider it again.

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 information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Ms X’s complaint the Council confirmed:
• Its Constitution encourages joint presentations where there are several supporters or objectors wishing to address a particular application. The advice provided was therefore correct in that a third person registering to speak against the application could have led to them not being able to speak and a joint representation being made instead. There is no requirement that ward councillors or applicants speak at committee.
• There was a major event due to weather declared at the time of the first scheduled meeting. This was unpredictable and subject to change at short notice.
• In accordance with the Constitution, meetings are limited to three hours unless extended by a resolution by the committee. In this case, the committee resolved to extend the meeting twice. If Members felt they did not have enough time to properly consider the planning application, they could have decided to defer the item to a later meeting.
• The Committee Chairman drew Members’ attention to the time as meetings must be run according to the constitution. There were three options open to the Committee:
1. to vote on the application
2. to propose another time extension to consider the application further; or
3. to propose a vote to defer the application to a later meeting.

The Committee did not propose extending the time or deferring the application. Therefore, there was no option other than to vote on the application.

7. The application at the heart of Ms X’s complaint was considered by the Planning Committee for 40 minutes. There is no set time for council committees to consider planning applications. It is for committee members to decide whether they have enough information to make a decision. This is what happened in this case.
8. The minutes of the meeting show the relevant information was discussed. If members felt they did not have enough time to consider the application they could have deferred it to a later date. They chose not to do so. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
9. Planning permission for change of use has been granted. We cannot require the Council to revoke the permission and have the application reheard.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions; and
• We cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman