The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s planning portal policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs X, complained about the Council’s planning portal policy which is to publish people’s names when they comment on a planning application.
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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Mrs X has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.
My assessment
Mrs X told us she has an interest in proposed developments within her village. She comments on planning applications through the Council’s planning portal. She told us the planning portal does not give her access to the applicant’s name but it publishes her name. Mrs X said because of this, people who have submitted applications have threatened her. Mrs X wants the Council to change its process and give her the option to use the portal anonymously.
The Council considered Mrs X’s complaint. It said it is following the current Planning Advisory Service’s interim guidance to planning practitioners in respect of Planning and GDPR (the General Data Protection Regulation). This guidance says if the Local Planning Authority conclude that openness and transparency warranted publishing comments on planning application they could probably justify publishing names. The Council suggested Mrs X could send her views on planning applications to her parish council or raise her concerns through her ward councillor.
We cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We have to look at whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the Council has considered the relevant guidance when reaching its policy decision. We are not an appeal body with powers to overrule a policy decision.
Mrs X told us the Council’s policy is unfair. If Mrs X believes the Council is not complying with data protection legislation, she can refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the independent body set up to uphold information rights and it deals with concerns about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman