Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed before granting planning permission for four new houses on plots behind the complainant’s home. From the information we have seen it is unlikely that we will find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs D, says the Council:
• failed to publicise planning applications correctly
• failed to visit and view the application sites from her home
• failed to consider land levels and amenity value
• failed to seek a wildlife report for six months
• allowed overdevelopment of a plot
• failed to refer planning applications to the planning committee; and
• failed to respond to her requests made under the Freedom of Information Act

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the Ms D complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. The complainant now had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In this case it was for planning officers to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
9. Ms D complains the Council failed to properly publicise planning applications for two plots of land behind her home. The purpose of publicising planning applications is to allow the public to comment. The Council says it told several neighbours about the applications, including Ms D. Its website shows several neighbours objected, including Mrs D. Therefore, I do not agree with Ms D’s assertion that the Council failed to follow the requirements for publicising planning applications. And even if there were fault on this point (which I have not found evidence of), Mrs D did not suffer any injustice as she commented on the applications.
10. Mrs D also says the Council failed to consider the land levels, the amenity, the wildlife, and the alleged overdevelopment of the plot. She also says the Council refused to visit her home to view the site from her perspective.
11. The Case Officer reports for the planning applications include summaries of the objections received and details of the relevant local and nation planning policies. The reports explain why, in the planning officer’s opinion, the proposals meet the policy requirements, therefore overcoming objections.
12. There is no requirement for planning officers to visit objectors’ homes, therefore I cannot criticise the Council for not doing so.
13. Mrs D complains the Council failed to refer the planning applications to the planning committee as requested by her MP.
14. The Council’s scheme of delegation sets out how planning applications are decided. Requests for applications which would usually be decided by case officers, must be made by local ward councillors. In this case no such requests were made. The MP does not have the authority to require such referrals.
15. A senior officer considered the planning officer’s report, they agreed with the officer’s recommendations to approve the applications and granted planning permission under the Council’s scheme of delegation. While Ms D may disagree with the decisions, this does not make them wrong.
16. Turning to Ms D’s complaint about the failure to provide her with information. It is reasonable to expect her to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
17. This is the body with specific powers and expertise to investigate Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with access to information law and regulations.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning polices; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
19. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if he investigated.
20. The ICO is the appropriate body to consider her complaint about the Council refusing to provide her with information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman