Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a planning application at a site near to Mr X’s home. This is because no significant injustice has been caused to Mr X. His complaint about the previous planning application at the site is late, and another body is better placed to consider complaints about Freedom of Information requests.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council relied on outdated information and did not properly consider biodiversity concerns in relation to a planning application. Mr X further complains the Council refused his Freedom of Information request. He says this has left him uncertain about a planned development near his home which has been stressful. Mr X wants the Council to do a new ecological assessment with a site visit and reassess the previous planning decision. He further asks the Council to be transparent and fair.

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. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council granted a prior approval application for a building development near Mr X’s home. The developer later submitted a full planning application to convert the building to dwellings.
8. Mr X said the Council wrongly decided to grant the prior approval and based its decision on incorrect information. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because it is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate matters that occurred in 2022 as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
9. Mr X also complained about a more recent application for the site. Mr X said the Council relied on outdated information and wrongly applied the ‘de minimis’ threshold. The developer withdrew the planning application before the Council decided if the proposed development was acceptable. Therefore no significant injustice has been caused to Mr X in relation to how the Council dealt with the full planning application.

10. Mr X complained the Council refused his Freedom of Information request. Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is concerned about how the Council handled his request for information as it is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because no significant injustice has been caused to Mr X. His complaint about the previous planning application is late, and another body is better placed to consider complaints about Freedom of Information requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman