The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to publish a wildlife report submitted as part of a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider whether the report should be made available, and the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice as the planning application has been refused.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should publish a wildlife report submitted in support of a planning application for a residential development. He says its reasons for not making the report available are flawed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman can 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 an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) 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 ICO.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Ombudsman normally expects a complainant to contact the ICO if they have concerns about a Council refusing to provide information. It is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights, and is better placed than the Ombudsman to deal with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with access to information legislation. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. The ICO can consider if any further action is needed by the Council.
In addition, as the planning application has been refused, I do not consider the complainant has been caused a significant injustice as a result of the Council’s decision not to publish the report.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for him to ask the ICO to consider his concerns about the decision to withhold the report, and he has not been caused a significant injustice as the associated planning application has been refused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman