Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council deals with planning permission in principle applications, nor in the way it considered a complaint about a councillor. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he believes the Council is withholding information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has:
• Failed to apply the statutory weight of the Neighbourhood Plan when it considered applications for planning permission in principle (PIP).
• Failed to investigate his complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct.
• Failed to release requested information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains the Council fails to give the full weight to the Neighbourhood Plan when considering applications for PIP.
6. PIP applications are not planning applications. The Government’s website states:

“The scope of permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development.”

7. The Council has explained to Mr X that it cannot consider planning policy or the Neighbourhood Plan when considering PIP applications.
8. Based on the information I have seen, I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the PIP applications to justify an investigation.
9. In response to Mr X’s complaint that a councillor breached the code of conduct, the Council’s procedure for dealing with complaints about councillors says the Monitoring Officer will review every complaint received before deciding whether it meets the criteria for considering whether a councillor breached the code. One criterion for deciding a complaint is not valid is that it does not relate to the code of conduct. In this case, Mr X complained about the way the Council was interpreting and implementing planning policies when determining planning applications, as opposed to poor conduct by a councillor.
10. The Council’s Monitoring Officer rejected the complaint as they decided the alleged action would not amount to a breach of the code of conduct. This is a decision they are entitled to make.
11. Finally, if Mr X is concerned the Council is withholding information, it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to consider complaints about access to information. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate complaints where another body is better placed to deal with the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the PIP applications or his code of conduct complaint. It is reasonable to expect him to complain to the ICO if he believes the Council is withholding information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman