The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to give its Scrutiny Committee the option of referring a matter to the full Council. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council failed to give the Scrutiny Committee the option to refer a decision to full Council despite the matter breaching the core local plan strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to him and planning policy information on the Council’s website.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X believes the Council is at fault for failing to follow the correct procedures at a committee meeting. He believes the Council’s Masterplan for the area where he lives is contrary to Council policy. He says the Scrutiny Committee should have therefore been given the opportunity to refer the decision on the Masterplan to the full Council.
The Council’s call-in procedure states: “If, having considered the decision, the Scrutiny Committee is still concerned about it, then it may refer it back to the decision-making person or body for reconsideration, setting out in writing the nature of its concerns or refer the matter to full Council if the decision is contrary to the policy framework or contrary to or not wholly in accordance with the budget.”
In response to his complaint the Council confirms the decision was not contrary to Council policy because it had no bearing on the principle of development of the site which is within the Green Belt. The Council says this is the point on which compliance with existing Council policy hinges. As it is not contrary to policy and accords with the budget, the procedure does not allow for the matter to be referred to the full council.
The Ombudsman does not offer a right of appeal against the Council’s decision,. We may consider where there was fault in how the decision was reached.
In this case, the Council has explained why the decision is not contrary to Council policy. I appreciate Mr X disagrees. However, it is for the Council to establish whether the Masterplan is contrary to its adopted policy.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman