Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application close to his home. We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s failure to tell Mr X personally that he could submit sensitive, personal information privately.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him that sensitive disability information about his child’s autism could be submitted privately.
2. He says because of this he could not safely disclose his child’s diagnosis leading to the Council deciding to approve the application without considering his sensory needs.

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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

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. Mr X says the Council failed to tell him that he could provide sensitive information as part of his objection to a planning application privately.
7. The Council wrote to Mr X advising of a planning application for a single storey extension to a commercial property which backs on to his rear garden. The letter says that any comments the Council receives will be made public.

8. The Council’s website states that any comments made about a planning application will be published on its website including the comments, name and address. However, it also states that it will consider requests to keep sensitive personal information confidential under special circumstances. It advises people to specify why their comment should be kept private.
9. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement sets out how it will consult the public on planning applications. This states:
   “Comments can also be submitted via email/post., Representations cannot be treated in confidence and will form part of the public planning application file which (subject to the Data Protection Act) is available online for inspection by appointment for ‘live’ files at the Town Hall.”
10. Under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulations, health and medical information requires increased protection and would be removed from comments on planning applications before publication.
11. Mr X did not ask the Council to keep any information private. In his objection to the planning application he stated his children were sensitive to noise. He did not advise that any of his children were autistic.
12. Therefore, the Council did not consider the impact of the single storey extension on Mr X’s autistic child. However, the planning officer’s report shows the Council considered the objections to the application on the grounds of:
• noise and disturbance
• adverse impact on daylight, sunlight and outlook
• loss of privacy
• overbearing and visually intrusive appearance; and
• inappropriate intensification of use of the site.
13. The report notes the proposed extension is a single storey building to be used for storage only. In the light of the existing use of the site the planning officer considered the noise will not be significantly exacerbated by the extension.
14. The report also addresses the other objections received with the officer concluding the proposal will not cause undue harm to neighbours privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight and noise or disturbance.
15. The Council added a condition to the planning permission which restricted the use of the new building to storage to be used during business hours only.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint having reviewed:
• the information about making comments on planning applications available on the Council’s website
• Mr X’s objection to the planning application
• The consideration given to the impact of the proposed building on neighbours
• The condition placed on the planning permission restricting the use of the building to storage use during working hours only; and
• The Council confirmation that it has amended its notification letters.
17. We consider the failure of the Council to specifically tell Mr X that sensitive, personal information would be kept private did not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman