Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application. She says the Council:
• Gave a perception of bias in favour of the developer.
• The Planning Officer failed to recuse themselves from the case and favoured the applicant’s case over the objections received.
• The process was not fair or transparent.
   

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.

(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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have considered the information about the application which is available on the Council’s website. This includes:
• The application documents.
• The Planning Officer’s report to the Planning Committee.
• A webcast of the Planning Committee meeting; and
• The minutes of the planning meeting.
6. The planning documents were published on the Council’s website and the Officer’s report was also published the week before the committee meeting.
7. At the meeting a councillor declared a prejudicial interest in the application. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in considering the application.
8. Further Committee members declared they were acquainted with the applicant’s agent who was a former councillor. However, they confirmed this former acquaintance did not prevent them from making a balanced decision on the application.
9. Planning officers are responsible for preparing reports on planning applications. Some of these reports are presented to planning committees as in this case. The Council confirmed the Planning Officer had no conflict of interest. The officer report:
• Details the relevant national and local planning policies
• Summarises the objections received
• Explains why the Officer considered the proposal overcame the objections and met the policy requirements.
10. I understand Mrs X believes the Planning Officer favoured the applicant’s proposal over the objections the Council received. However, the National Planning Policy Framework contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means decision-makers should approve development proposals that align with up-to-date development plans without delay.
11. Following the presentation of the application the Planning Committee voted to approve the application.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the application, and the information it took account of when deciding to approve it. I have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman