The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of public comments on a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says there is a lack of transparency by the Council in relation to access to planning documents and that it changed its position having initially said public comments on an application would be available on its website. He also complains about a data breach.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to Mr X’s complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about its procedures for dealing with public comments on planning applications having initially been told he would be able to view the comments online.
The Council apologised that he had been wrongly informed he would be able to view the comments online. It explained its standard procedure is to upload responses for statutory and other consultees but not neighbour comments where there is no legal obligation to put them on the website. Instead, those who wish to view the comments are able to request this and see the redacted comments at the Council’s offices. Mr X made a request to see them, and this was arranged. He also made a request for a copy of the documents, and this was provided.
The Council apologised for the initial wrong advice Mr X received but this was corrected not long after it was given and Mr X was able to view the documents in person. He therefore saw the comments he had wanted to see.
We do not investigate every complaint we receive. Here there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation. Mr X has referred to difficulties elderly residents may have about accessing information but that is a matter an individual can raise with the Council so it can respond appropriately.
Mr X says there has been a data protection breach relating to information about him. The Council says the information released to him was not released to anyone else. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection and so this is not a matter we will pursue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman