Summary: Mr X complained about planning applications in 2015, 2017 and 2019 which he says were not considered or properly enforced. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which he was aware of outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about planning applications since 2015 for developments at a neighbouring site which he says have affected the amenity of his home. He says the Council failed to properly pursue enforcement action and there were delays in communicating with him about the developments.

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 have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says planning applications for different developments at a neighbouring site have resulted in a loss of amenity to his home. He objected to plans in 2015 to carry out building works but the plans were approved. He reported to the Council that the conditions attached to the plans for an acoustic barrier had not been met. The Council opened an enforcement file and the applicant submitted retrospective plans in due course. The property lease was then sold, and the new leaseholder complied with the original conditions.
6. Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the Council’s decision not to pursue enforcement further. Local planning authorities have discretionary powers whether or not to pursue planning enforcement. Had he complained to us within 12 months it is unlikely we would have questioned the merits of the Council’s decision that it was not expedient to pursue the matter further.
7. Mr X also objected to the 2017 application for development. Following its approval, he told the Council that the roofline of the development was in breach of the approved plans. The Council caried out an enforcement inspection and concluded that there was no planning breach. He did not complain to us about the approval or the enforcement decision within 12 months.
8. A further planning application was made for the site in 2019 to vary a condition of a previous approval. Mr X objected through his solicitor, but the plans were approved in early 2019. He did not complain to us within 12 months and there is no evidence of fault in the decision which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman now.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which he was aware of outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman