Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that further investigation will find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application for the new property. Nor should we investigate the complaint about breaches of data protection. I do not consider this has caused a significant personal injustice, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council:
• has allowed a property to be built which damages the setting of his grade two (G2) listed home; and
• repeatedly breached his data protection rights

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted planning permission in 2020 for a new house more than 280 metres from Mr X’s home. It erected a site notice and sought comments from various statutory consultees. Mr X did not object to the application.
7. The Council’s Building Conservation Officer did not object and stated “the proposed new building will have no negative impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings. This is due to the distance of the proposed replacement building from any nearby listed buildings and separation by roads and boundaries.”
8. 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 policies, comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
9. The information I have seen and 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 the way the Council considered the planning application.
10. Mr X reported that the new building is higher than it should be. The Council confirms a hedge has been reduced in height which means the upper floors of the new property are more visible. However, as the site is more than 280 metres from Mr X’s home, the Council does not consider this has a detrimental impact.
11. Mr X also complains the Council has repeatedly breached his data protection rights.
12. The Council acknowledges it published Mr X’s address in reference to an unconnected planning application. Following Mr X’s complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Council apologised for this and advised Mr X of the action taken.
13. Mr X asked the Council for compensation for the data protection breach. It advised it would do so if ordered to pay compensation by the ICO. Mr X says the ICO told him it could not do so.
14. Mr X says the Council made another data breach. This time he did report it to the ICO as he wants compensation which it cannot provide.
15. From the information I have seen I do not consider the data protection breaches have caused Mr X significant personal injustice. It he believes the Council has been negligent with his personal data, and should compensate him for this, then he should ask the courts to consider the matter.
16. Only the court can decide if the Council has been negligent. And, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to pay damages.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that further investigation will find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application for the new property that Mr X is concerned about. Nor should we investigate Mr X’s complaint about breaches of data protection. I do not consider this has caused a significant personal injustice, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking as we cannot order the Council to pay compensation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman