Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her planning application and its handling of the matter. It is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate thereby placing the matter outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:

• incorrectly refused her planning application based on inaccurate information;
• published inaccurate information on its website;
• failed to respond to her complaint effectively and in a timely manner, and;
• breached data protection law.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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.

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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. It is reasonable for her to appeal to Planning Inspectorate which is better placed to review such matters. And any issues related to the Council’s decision-making process are not separable from the matter that can be appealed; therefore, I will not investigate this aspect of her complaint.
10. We expect councils to publish details of their decision making on their websites for transparency. There is not enough evidence of fault to investigate this aspect of the complaint. And any dispute over the accuracy of that information/decision making is better placed for the Planning Inspectorate.
11. It is not good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s handling of the matter in isolation when I will not investigate the substantive matter.
12. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about matters related to the Council’s data handling. The ICO is the appropriate body to consider such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman