Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council for declining to decide a planning application and the injustice from a late letter is not significant enough to warrant investigation. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about Freedom of Information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council used a rarely cited piece of legislation to decline to decide his company’s planning application. Mr X says the Council’s decision to decline was a result of fault made by the Council on a different application.
2. Mr X says the Council is obstructing his application which has cost him financially and caused distress. He wants the Council to grant permission and refund his expenses.
3. Mr X also complains about how the Council responded to his freedom of information request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Section 70A(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act says Councils can decline to determine a planning application. It can do so if it considers the new application is not significantly different from a planning application it has refused in the previous two years.
9. Mr X submitted a planning application in January 2025. The Council decided it was too similar to applications from Mr X in 2023 and 2024, so it declined to consider this application. The Council explained its reasons to Mr X and explained it had decided against applying discretion. Mr X may be unhappy the Council has engaged this piece of legislation because it is rarely used, but that does not mean the Council is at fault for using it. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for how it made its decision.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. We will not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. Mr X says the Council delayed validating another application he made at the same time about a different property, because it did not send a letter in good time. Mr X says the Council should have looked at the two applications together and the delay in one impacted the other. However, neither planning application refers to the other. In addition, even if the Council had validated that application on the same day it received it, the statutory time limits mean the Council would not be obliged to consider it before the date it made its decision on this application. So, I do not consider there has been significant enough personal injustice from a late letter to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigation.
12. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. I have seen no reason this complaint would be an exception. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for declining to determine a planning application and the injustice from a late letter is not significant enough to warrant investigation. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about Freedom of Information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman