Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application before granting planning permission. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. We will not investigate events which occurred more than 12 months ago as complaints about these are late and there is no reason why Miss X could not have complained sooner.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council disregarded a legal agreement when it approved an application to extend a place of worship near her home. She also complains about the way the Council dealt with planning matters on the same site which occurred more than 12 months ago.
2. Mrs X also states the Council has failed to provide information requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s records show its planning committee considered the application to extend the place of worship. The planning officer’s report on the proposal includes a summary of the objections received and the issues raised about the existing legal agreement.
9. Miss X and members of the local community spoke in objection at the committee meeting.
10. Committee members sought clarification from the legal officer in attendance on the legal agreement.
11. The planning officer’s report and the minutes of the meeting show the Council considered the status of the legal agreement and the implications of the planning proposal before making its decision to grant planning permission.
12. The planning permission also includes details of noise mitigation measures to be put in place.
13. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision to give consent for the development. But it considered:
• the proposal
• the objections
• the relevant national and local planning policy; and
• the legal advice received about the legal agreement.
14. It was entitled to use its professional judgement. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to adjudicate on disputed points of law. We cannot question the Council’s decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely we could find fault.
15. Miss X also raises concerns about planning matters occurring more than 12 months ago. The law says a complaint must be made within 12 months of someone becoming aware of the matter. Therefore the part of Miss X’s complaint about events that took place more than a year before her complaint to us are late and we have seen no reason why she could not have complained to us sooner about these concerns.
16. Miss X also complains the Council failed to provide information in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act.
17. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to refer her complaint about a failure to respond to requests for information to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is because this is the body with specific powers and expertise to consider the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The ICO has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way it considered the planning application before deciding to grant planning permission.
19. We have seen no reason why Miss X could not have raised her complaints about events which occurred more than a year ago much sooner.
20. It is reasonable to expect her to complain to the ICO if she believes the Council has failed to provide information she is entitled to see.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman