Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application and delays in responding to the complaint. The Council refused the planning application, so we do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice on this point. The application was approved by the Planning Inspectorate which is outside our jurisdiction. Also, we do not consider the complainant suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to:
• follow policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
• engage with residents
• establish the true activities of the planning application
• divulge legal advice
• adhere to anti-fraud and corruption policy
• failed to adhere to probity in planning policy; and
• failed to respond to complaint with agreed times.

He wants the Council’s planning department dismissed and its errors corrected.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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

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. From the information I have seen, this complaint relates to two planning applications for a site near Mr X’s home. One of the applications was withdrawn by the applicant. Therefore I do not consider Mr X suffered any injustice because of the way the Council processed this application.
7. The other application was refused by the Council. Therefore I do not consider Mr X suffered any significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. The planning application was later approved by the Planning Inspectorate; however, this body is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
8. Mr X says the Council should release information relating to legal advice it obtained. If he believes the Council is refusing to provide information which he is entitled to receive, it is reasonable to expect him to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is the body set up to consider complaints about such matters. Mr X would also have a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal if he was dissatisfied with the ICO’s decision on the freedom of information matters.
9. Mr X also complained the Council failed to respond to his complaint within its published timeframe and failed to respond to his emails chasing a response.
10. We expect councils to respond to complaints according to their published complaints procedure. However, we do not consider delays in responses to have caused Mr X a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• we do consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions when processing the planning application as it was refused
• it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the ICO about the Council’s failure to provide him with information he has requested
• Mr X wants the Council’s planning department dismissed, this is not something we can achieve; and
• he has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman