Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about a planning decision the Council took in 2017. This is because his complaint is late and there are not good enough reasons for us to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr C, complained that, by approving a planning application in 2017, the Council allowed the developer to destroy the habitat used by bats and it exacerbated the situation by allowing the removal of the required mitigation measures. Mr C told us the number of bats he has seen since the development started has reduced markedly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr C provided and the Council’s responses to his complaint. Mr C has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr C has not complained to us in time about the Council’s 2017 decision to approve the planning application in question. Mr C was aware of the application and made representations to the Council about it. He could, therefore, have complained to us sooner about the Council’s decision. Mr C told us he did not understand the complaints process at the time the Council made this decision. He said the process has only become known to him more recently when he made a further complaint about the Council’s planning service. But our service has been in existence for more than 40 years. Mr C could have made enquiries about how to pursue his complaint if he was dissatisfied with what the Council had done.
6. Mr C has said, in this instance, not only is there the possibility the Council failed to follow planning guidance, but there is a real possibility it broke the law. He made the point bats are endangered and legally protected. Mr C said the time which has elapsed should not excuse the Council from potentially allowing non- compliance with the law. He said, if we investigate, this would allow the Council to be held to account if it has not properly implemented planning policies or adhered to the law. But, if we do not investigate, he said the Council will not know what it is doing is wrong. So Mr C said the Council will continue to make incorrect planning decisions allowing destruction of bat habitats.
7. Our role is to consider complaints of injustice caused by administrative fault by a council. Almost four years has elapsed since the Council reached its decision. Even if there was fault by the Council in 2017, there is little prospect we could now reach a conclusive finding on whether that would have meant the outcome of the planning application process might have been different. This means we would have no basis to call on the Council to provide a remedy. So there are not good enough reasons for us to exercise discretion to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is late and there are not good enough reasons for us to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman