Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning enforcement case because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the approval of an extension to his neighbour’s house in May 2020. He also complained about the Council’s failure to take action over the removal of protected trees on the site and enforcement against breaches of the approved planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained about the plans submitted by his neighbour in 2020. He says he tried to contact the case officer several times after he made objections, but his communications were ignored. The Council later confirmed to him that it does not engage is discussions with objectors when an application was yet to be determined. It received his objections, and they were referred to in the case officer’s report on the decision recommendation.
7. Mr X complained to the Council in 2020 about the decision on the application and it was reasonable for him to complaint to us at the time if he remained dissatisfied. I have seen no evidence to suggest he could not have complained to us sooner.
8. Mr X also complained to the Council in 2020 about the neighbour removing trees which were subject to preservation orders as part of the extension works. The Council investigated and told him that it could see no works to the removed trees but if any had been removed or damaged it would take action over the offence.
9. If Mr X had evidence that the protected trees had been removed, then he could have made a complaint to us in 2020 and we would have considered the Council’s actions. I have seen no evidence to suggest he could not have complained to us sooner.
10. When the works were complete in 2021 Mr X complained that they did not comply with the approved plans in terms of dimensions and boundary treatment. He said that he could see into the neighbouring building from some of his windows in non-habitable rooms.
11. The Council opened an enforcement case but when the site was measured there was no evidence of a planning breach and so it could take no further action.
12. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the Council fund no breaches of planning regulations so it could not take enforcement action against Mr X’s neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning enforcement case because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman