Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council including her address as an objector in a planning officer report. Even if the Council had not included her address, the details required in the report would have likely informed Mrs X’s neighbour of the objection’s source. The Council cannot be held directly responsible for the resulting injustice Mrs X claims from the actions of her neighbour. Any concerns about the Council breaching Mrs X’s privacy would be for the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next door to a property where the owner sought planning permission in 2019 for an extension then, in 2021, a retrospective permission for what they had built.
2. Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly disclosed to her neighbour that she had objected to the retrospective planning application. She says this has resulted in the neighbour abusing her twice in public, creating a hostile environment which is causing her stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code;
• relevant online planning documents;
• Mrs X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council included Mrs X’s address in the officer report when assessing the impact of the proposed development on it as an existing property. The Council is considering whether to change its policy on what information should be included in planning reports. It accepts its policy at the time was to remove personal data from documents received by third parties used in public planning matters.
7. Mrs X says the Council’s inclusion of her address in the officer report is the only way her neighbour knew she had been the one who objected. But even if the Council had followed its policy and not included Mrs X’s address in the 2021 planning report, we cannot say the neighbour would not have identified Mrs X as the objector. I say this because a planning report often needs to include a description of the relationships between the proposed development and older properties, to assess the impact of the former on the latter. Councils also need to strike a balance in planning reports between the anonymity of parties and the transparency of the process for the wider public.
8. In this case, Mrs X was concerned about loss of privacy and overlooking from the extension. A discussion of these concerns in any understandable planning officer report required details of the location, size, scale, orientation and openings of the extension, and its intended relationship with Mrs X’s property. So even without the address in the report, it is more likely than not that her neighbour would have identified Mrs X as the objector from the property details needed to produce a comprehensible planning report, alongside their existing knowledge of their own application and the neighbouring properties.
9. Mrs X’s stated injustice is that her neighbour has twice verbally abused her about her objection to the 2021 application, and that has caused her stress and an uncomfortable situation. I do not consider the Council can be held responsible for any abusive and inappropriate behaviour by the neighbour towards Mrs X which has caused this discomfort. It was the neighbour’s decision to respond to Mrs X’s planning objection in this way. If Mrs X continues to be concerned about the neighbour’s behaviour towards her, she may wish to report it to the Council as anti-social behaviour, or to the police.
10. If Mrs X believes the Council’s actions breached her privacy or officers incorrectly disclosed her personal information, these issues would be best dealt with by the ICO. There are no good reasons for us to investigate this part of the complaint. This is because the ICO is the body created by national government to consider complaints about data protection issues and law, so is best placed to consider Mrs X’s concerns. If the ICO upholds a complaint, any claim for damages stemming from the finding would be a matter only a court could determine.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We should not investigate this complaint because:
• even if the Council had followed its planning policy, the details required for the officer report, and the neighbour’s own knowledge of the application and the location, meant it was more likely than not that Mrs X’s neighbour would still have identified her as the source of the planning objection;
• the Council cannot be held directly responsible for the injustice Mrs X claims, which is caused by the individual actions of her neighbour;
• Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s actions and planning report policy breaching her privacy would be matters best considered by the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman