Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her planning application. This is because Ms X had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspector which it would have been reasonable for her to use, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s request for further information in any event. If Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of her information request it would have been reasonable for her to complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her planning application. She says the Council took too long to decide the application and told her to commission an assessment in order for it to recommend it for approval, but then refused it. She is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of her information request and about its publication of two letters which contained personal information.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Delay in determining the application

8. As set out at Paragraph 5, planning applicants have a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector on the grounds of non-determination (delay). The right of appeal applied, in this case, from eight weeks after the Council validated the application and lasted for six months.
9. Ms X was aware of the Council’s delay in deciding the application at the time and if she had concerns about it, and about the additional costs she says it caused, it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The assessment

10. The Council told Ms X in late 2024 that for it to support her application it needed an additional assessment to show the visual impact of the proposed development was acceptable. Ms X says the planning officer confirmed “the Council are looking to approve the application subject to the [assessment] being provided.”
11. She says the officer later told her “If we do not provide an [assessment], [the Council] will be refusing the application. However, with a positive [assessment], they will look to recommend approval.”
12. Ms X commissioned the assessment shortly afterwards and submitted it to the Council in 2024. However the planning officer could not put the application to the Council’s planning committee right away because the agenda was full. They therefore held the case back until the next meeting.
13. Before the planning committee could determine the application the Council adopted a new local plan which Ms X says raised the bar for the type of development she had applied for. As a result she says the Council told her it would no longer support the application and that it would be refused on principle. Ms X therefore considers the money she spent on the assessment- £3,000- was unnecessary and wasted.
14. But it is clear from what Ms X says in her complaint that the Council felt it needed the assessment when it requested it and that it intended to recommend the application for approval if the assessment was supportive of the proposal. We could not therefore say it was fault to ask Ms X for it.
15. It was in any event entirely Ms X’s choice to commission the assessment; had she felt it was unnecessary she could have appealed to the Planning Inspector due to the delay, as above, or simply refused to provide the assessment and appealed against the Council’s refusal.
16. There is no suggestion the Council gave any guarantee that it would grant planning permission and the content of the assessment is referred to in the planning officer’s report as a reason to refuse it. We would not therefore say the Council should reimburse Ms X for the cost.

Information request

17. Ms X was not happy with the Council’s response to her information request so she requested an internal review. The review found the reason for refusing to disclose the information Ms X had requested was flawed but it gave other reasons for not providing it to Ms X. The Council’s letter sets out Ms X’s right to challenge its response to the Information Commissioner and we consider it would have been reasonable for her to use that right. She may also have asked the Information Commissioner to consider whether the Council’s publication of personal information amounted to a data breach.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the Planning Inspector and to challenge the Council’s response to her information request with the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman