Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened during the Council’s planning panel meeting. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about what happened at a planning panel meeting. She says the meeting was not conducted in line with the Council’s constitution and proper protocol was not followed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council received an outline planning application for a residential development near Mrs X’s home. The planning case officer recommended the application be approved. The application was referred to the Council’s planning panel for determination and members voted against the planning officer’s recommendation. The planning decision was therefore deferred for a later meeting. At the second planning panel meeting members voted in favour of the application and outline planning permission has been granted subject to conditions.
5. Mrs X has complained about the second planning panel meeting. She says the meeting was not carried out in line with the Council’s constitution. Mrs X says she was told before the meeting that members of the public would be allowed to speak and could present new information. However, a member of the public was interrupted while speaking about the application on the basis they were raising new issues. Mrs X says other protocol was also not followed during the meeting and the meeting minutes are not accurate.
6. However, Mrs X did have the opportunity to speak at both planning panel meetings and raised her concerns about the development. I cannot say she has been caused any significant personal injustice by issues affecting other members of the public speaking at the meeting.
7. The meeting minutes are also just a summary of what happened and were confirmed as an accurate record at the following planning panel meeting.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant personal injustice because of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman