Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its scheme of delegation correctly when it decided a planning application.
2. He says this has caused him to lose confidence in the Council’s decision making.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. Mr X says the Council did not follow the process for referring a planning application to the planning committee correctly.
7. The Council says the scheme of delegation in place when the planning application was decided states that if a town or parish council has an opinion on a planning application which is contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation, the officer will ask the planning committee Chair or Vice-Chair if they wish to call the application in. The scheme also states:

“…if the Chair, and Vice Chair has not responded to the nominated Officer after 5 working days following the day of first communication with that Member for the purpose of deciding whether a matter should be referred to the Planning Committee for determination, the nominated Officer can proceed on the assumption that neither the Chair nor the Vice Chair want the application to be referred to a planning committee.”

8. The Council confirmed the planning officer contacted the Chair and Vice Chair about the application. On the fifth working day after sending the email, the officer had not received a reply from either Member. The officer put the case forward for a decision. The Council decided to approve the application under delegated authority on the fifth day.
9. Two days later, the Chair responded to the planning officer. They confirmed they did not want the application called to committee.
10. I understand Mr X is concerned the officer did not send any reminders to the Chair and Vice Chair, and that the application was decided on the fifth working day. However, there is no requirement in the scheme of delegation to send such reminders.
11. Also, the Chair confirmed they did not want the application called to committee. Although this confirmation is late I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the planning application.
12. The Ombudsman will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults in the Council’s actions. I acknowledge that Mr X has lost confidence in the planning process and the Council’s decision making. However, I do not consider this is sufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning application. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice to justify our involvement.
     

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman