Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we do not consider Ms X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application.
   She says the actions of the planning committee undermines public confidence, poses reputational risk to the Council and may leave it open to legal challenge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a planning application to build two houses. The Council confirmed it notified neighbouring properties and erected a site notice. It confirmed it only sent letters to buildings or residences, not to owners of open land. The law requires the Council to either notify neighbours or erect a site notice near the site. In this case the Council did both, thereby satisfying the legal requirements on publicising the application.
6. A case officer wrote a report on the scheme. They recommended the Council refused the application.
7. A councillor asked for the application to be ‘called in’ and decided by the planning committee. Ms X is concerned the call in procedure was not followed. However, the Council procedure says any councillor may call an application to planning committee if it is within 28 days of the initial consultation and the required call-in form is completed. The call in met the criteria and was accepted as valid.
8. The application was considered by the planning committee. From the information I have seen officers made it clear to the committee members that there were many issues with the proposal that must be overcome before planning permission can be granted. The committee head from speaker for and against the proposal and debated the matter. It voted to overturn the officer’s recommendation and delegated the decision to officers to approve the application. This is subject to receiving documents and reports conditions which members decided would make the proposal acceptable.
9. I understand Ms X is not happy with the conduct of the committee members during the meeting. However complaints about the conduct of councillors are subject to a separate complaint procedure which is overseen by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. Such complains cannot be considered under the Council’s corporate complaint procedure.
10. The decision to approve the planning application in question was delegated to officers subject to securing conditions which would make the proposal acceptable. The decision remains outstanding at the time of writing this decision. If the applicant cannot satisfy the Council’s requirements then planning permission cannot be granted.
11. Ms X also complains the Council no longer makes hard copy planning applications available to view and failed to follow the complaint procedure.
12. The Council has confirmed hard copy applications are available to view at its offices on request.
13. We do not consider it a good use of public resources to investigate a failure in the complaint process alone when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application; and
• As planning permission has not bee granted we do not consider Ms X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman