Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot investigate matters which affect all or most of the people in the Council’s area. And it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office about the Council’s responses to his requests for information.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council:
• Used in-house advice when considering his complaint.
• Provided wrong or limited information to the planning committee; and
• Failed to provide information asked for under the Freedom of Information Act.
2. Mr X says the project has cost the taxpayer £45 million and gains nothing.
3. Mr X wants the Council to revisit the planning decision and process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In 2025, the Council granted planning permission to demolish its existing swimming centre and build a new sports and leisure centre with associated parking, landscape and access.
10. Mr X says the Council was biased, provided wrong information to the planning committee and relied on in-house advice.
11. Planning is a regulatory function of local authorities. The law allows the Council to decide its own planning application. Applications must, according to the law, be determined “in accordance with the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The effect of this is that, when deciding whether to approve a planning application, the Council’s first consideration is whether the proposal accords with national and local planning policy. If it does, there is a presumption it will be approved. Other material considerations, such as the effect the proposal will have on neighbours, will also influence the decision.
12. Councils have no duty to consult the public about planning applications. Their duty is to publicise the application and take account of any representations they receive.
13. From the information I have seen, the Council publicised the application and received comments from the public and statutory consultees. This include, but is not limited to:
• Sport England
• County Council; and
• Active Travel England
• And various in-house consultee departments.
14. The planning officer prepared a report on the scheme which included a summary of the objections received, including those from Mr X and members of various sports clubs.
15. The report also explains some facilities at the old centre will be either reduced at the new centre or will not be provided.
16. The minutes show the planning committee debated the proposal. It heard from the chairman of a club which has used the existing pool for many years, and from a user of the leisure centre, who both objected to the proposal.
17. Following a debate the Council decided to approve the application, after completing a section 106 agreement.
18. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies, unless material considerations suggest otherwise. People’s comments on planning are material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
19. From the information I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application to justify an investigation.
20. Mr X says the Council’s actions have cost taxpayers £45 million, without any gain. This is something which affects all or most residents and business in the Council’s area. As stated in paragraph five above, this is not a matter we can investigate.
21. Finally, Mr X complains the Council failed to provide information he asked for under the Freedom of Information Act. If Mr X believes the Council is withholding information which he is entitled to receive, it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is the body set out by Parliament to oversee access to information rights.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.
• We cannot investigate matters which affect all or most of the people in the Council’s area; and
• It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office with concerns about the Council’s response to his requests for information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman