Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application from 2019. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says information regarding highway safety data was removed from a 2019 planning application and that this has impacted pedestrian safety in his road which distresses him when he looks out into the road.

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)
4. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says there was fault in the way the Council dealt with a 2019 planning application for a development close to his home.
8. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to this complaint. This is because Mr X has known about the matters of which he complains for a number of years. As we would reasonably have expected him to have complained to us sooner, the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and there are no grounds which warrant the exercise of discretion to investigate it.
9. Even if the complaint had not been late, while his concerns about general pedestrian safety are noted, the injustice he has described is not sufficient to warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. Mr X has also referred to recent comments made by the County Council’s Highways Authority in relation to planning applications submitted to the Council for consideration. He says Highways have commented that infrastructure improvements would be required to Mr X’s road before it would support development. However, he has confirmed that permission for these applications has not been granted.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman