Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and decided to approve a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application. He says the planning department presented poorly prepared documents, the committee members were not trained or qualified, and the committee chair showed bias for the application.
2. Mr X wants the planning permission revoked.

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; and
• 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint state:
• 38 objections were noted by its planning software system, but 48 comments were received as comments on the Council’s website. It says the difference is because some addresses make more than one comment and one system consolidates the comments received. However, it confirmed all comments received were available to view, were summarised in the planning officer’s report and were known or made known to committee members before they made their decision on the application.
• Missing the word senior in a job title is not relevant.
• There was no requirement to consult the neighbouring parish council.
• Officers visited the site. No member asked to visit the site. Committee Members could have chosen to defer the application and make a site visit. They chose not to do so.
• Following the district council elections in 2023 induction sessions took place for all councillors including those on the planning committee. Training sessions were also held for new councillors elected in four recent by elections. Plus workshop events to brief members on new planning policy. The Council is satisfied members of the planning committee were suitably qualified to make the decision on the planning application in question.
7. Based on the information provided by the Council, the report to the committee and the committee minutes, I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and approved the planning application to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X also complained about the conduct of planning committee members, including the Chair. Complaints about the conduct of councillors are subject to a separate complaints’ process and should be directed to the Council’s Monitoring Officer. If Mr X makes such a complaint and remains dissatisfied with the way the Council considers it, he can make a separate complaint to the Ombudsman on this point.
9. Finally, we cannot require the Council to withdraw the planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered a planning application and its decision to approve it.
• It is for Mr X to make a separate complaint about the conduct of councillors; and
• We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman