Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a grant of planning permission in 2020. There are no reasons to justify an investigation of matters known to Mrs X for more than 12 months. We will not investigate the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action as it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council should not have granted planning permission to a site next to her home. She says it should have taken enforcement action.

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 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X, the Council’s replies to her and the application on the planning portal.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted planning permission in March 2020 for a development next to Mrs X’s home. She says this overlooks her home, and there is not enough parking for the site.
7. Mrs X says the development did not start until November 2024. She says this is after the three year time limit. She reported this to the Council. She says the Council failed to take enforcement action.
8. The Council says a building control officer visited the site in March 2023. They decided a trench had been dug and this was enough to qualify as commencing the development. Mrs X disagrees with this.

Analysis

9. We cannot investigate events known to Mrs X for more than 12 months unless there are good reasons to do so. Here the planning permission was granted five years before she complained to us. She has provided no reasons why she has delayed so long.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
11. The Council decided the development had commenced within the three years. The Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from Mrs X and the building control officer, and its own policies. It is unlikely our investigation would criticise its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the grant of planning permission because this happened more than five years before she complained to us and there are no reasons which justify us not applying the 12 month rule. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman