Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application that is near a heritage asset. We ended our investigation because the complaint is outside our time limit for investigations and there are no good reasons to use our discretion to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decisions to approve development on land near a heritage asset.
2. Mr X said that, because the development was approved, it will be more expensive and difficult to restore the asset in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

7. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
8. Planning decisions can be for ‘full’ applications, where all or most details needed to make a decision are provided by the applicant. On larger developments, applicants often submit ‘outline’ applications, with plans that give an indication of what is proposed to be built, and include some details, usually including details of access to the highway. An outline approval can be followed by a ‘reserved matters’ application, which will provide all or most of the details needed to make a decision.

What happened

9. The application came in two parts. An outline application, which was approved in 2016 and a reserved matters application, which was approved in 2019.
10. Mr X did not complain to us within our 12 month time limit. He said he waited because he was hoping that negotiations with the developer and another public body might have resolved his concerns.

My findings

11. The Ombudsman’s powers are subject to time limits. We do not normally investigate matters unless they are brought to our attention within 12-months from when events occurred or the complainant could have known about them. We have discretion to go back beyond this limit but would need a good reason to do so.
12. We should not investigate late complaints or complaints that relate to matters that occurred long ago, unless:
• we are confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
• we are satisfied that the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.
13. Mr X could have come to us sooner but chose not to. In any event, we are not an appeal body and so would not be able to comment on a judgement the Council made unless there was some fault in the decision-making process. Mr X is not suggesting fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I ended my investigation as the complainant was late in bringing this matter to our attention, and I see no good reason to investigate now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman