The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure to follow voting procedures at a Planning Committee meeting. The Council is still considering the planning application at the centre of the complaint. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed to follow the correct procedure when voting at a planning meeting.
He wants all progress on the planning application concerned to stop until the Planning Committee has taken a new vote.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the Planning Committee failed to follow the correct process when voting on an application for 25 houses in the village where he lives. He says a motion to approve the application failed. He says the Committee then failed to take a vote on the reasons for refusal. Instead, a Planning Officer stated the Committee members and planners were not qualified to judge or defend one of the reasons given to refuse the application. After further discussion the Committee voted to defer the decision to allow officer to seek more information.
In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council confirms the Committee voted to refuse the proposal to approve the application. Members then discussed the reasons for refusing the application. It says Members believed more evidence was needed to defend a refusal in the event of a possible appeal. Therefore, it decided to defer the application was deferred to allow officers to obtain more information.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. I understand Mr X has concerns about local democracy. However, the application has not been approved and will be sent back to the Planning Committee for decision. Therefore, I do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman