Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a condition attached to planning permission granted in 2018. Part of the complaint is late. There is nothing to suggest other fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I refer to here as Mr and Mrs B, complained the Council misled them about a condition on a planning application for development next to their home. The condition related to a rooflight in the proposed development that would face their home. They say this prevented them from appealing.
2. Mr and Mrs B also say the developer did not comply with the condition when construction began more recently.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs B and the Council. I have also seen information on the Council’s website.
7. I considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In 2017 the Council received a planning application for development next to Mr and Mrs B’s home. It sought the views of neighbours, including Mr and Mrs B.
9. The Council had to consider the planning merits of the application and grant permission if there was no valid reason for refusal.
10. A Council officer advised Mr and Mrs B in 2017 the Council would attach a standard condition relating to the rooflight to any planning permission. It did not specifically say the rooflight would not need to be fixed shut if it was 1.7 metres above floor level.
11. The Council granted planning permission in 2018. A condition stated that, before the building was occupied, the rooflight had be fitted with obscure glazing and be fixed shut unless over 1.7 metres above floor level. Unlike the applicant, Mr and Mrs B had no right of appeal against the conditions attached to the planning permission.
12. More recently, the Council considered Mr and Mrs B’s concern that the rooflight in the building under construction did not comply with the condition as the glazing was not obscure. The Council said there was no breach because the building had not yet been occupied. It has told me the rooflight is now obscure glazed and complies with the condition.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs B’s complaint. If they had any concerns about the conditions attached to the planning permission, they should have complained within 12 months of it being granted in 2018. There is no exceptional reason we should investigate a complaint about this now. There is nothing to suggest fault in how the Council has dealt with Mr and Mrs B’s concerns about a possible recent breach of the condition.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman