The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has handled a planning application for a site close to Ms A’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mrs X complains on behalf of her sister, Ms A, the Council mishandled a planning application the Council submitted for a property it owns. Mrs X says the Council ignored objections and discriminated against the elderly and vulnerable. Mrs X complains the same councillors sat on different committees and says this is a conflict of interest. Mrs X would like the Council to reconsider the whole development.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The planning application relates to a development of a Council owned site that currently has a cottage on it and land adjacent to this. The application details the building of two semi detached homes, a detached home and two apartments. One of the semi-detached properties would be approximately 19m from Ms A’s window. Mrs X complains Ms A would be overlooked and would affect her amenity. The Council has considered this matter and stated there would be no significant impact on neighbour amenity in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. We could not add to this response.
Mrs X says the Council discriminated against elderly and vulnerable residents in a time of national lockdown. The Council has confirmed that plans were available online, a notice board with plans was placed on the site and the Council was accepting visitors with an appointment to view the plans in the office, in line with national guidance at the time. There is no evidence of fault with this decision, and we could not add to this response.
Mrs X feels that complaints from local residents were ignored when they raised objections to this development. The Council has noted in the minutes the objections were considered and have decided to approve the application. There is no evidence of fault with this decision, and we could not add to this response.
Mrs X has raised concerns about councillors sitting on multiple committees and says this is a conflict of interest, given the site is Council owned. The Council has confirmed there is an overlap of Councillors sitting on different committees due to the number of available councillors and committees. The Council has confirmed that four councillors attended both planning and housing committee meetings. The planning application was confirmed at the planning meeting, but no amendments were made at the housing meeting. The minutes of the planning committee meeting confirmed the application was approved but does not provide the number of votes for or against the planning application. The Council has confirmed it does not keep records of this and does not have an obligation to. We are unable to say if the four members who sat on both committees’ votes made a significant difference in the outcome of the decision, that is the Council officers’ professional judgement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman