Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late. It is also unlikely we would find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application and possible breach of planning control. Mr X says he was not informed about the proposal, and the development is not being carried out in line with the approved plans. Mr X says the extension has a significant impact on his property.

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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has raised many concerns about his neighbour’s planning application. However, I consider Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with the application late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been more than a year since the Council granted planning permission for the development. Mr X knew about the application at the time and objected to the proposal. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
7. Furthermore, even if I did agree the complaint was on time, my decision not to investigate would be the same. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not have a significant impact on neighbouring properties.
8. Mr X has said the Council did not consult him about the development. But Mr X was aware of the application and commented on the proposal. Therefore, I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the application was publicised.
9. Mr X says the development has not been built in line with the approved plans and encroaches on his property.
10. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
11. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and an officer visited the site. However, the Council decided the issues Mr X complained about did not have a material impact. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. Mr X’s concerns about the development encroaching on his property would be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
12. Mr X says the Council took too long to look into his concerns about a possible breach. But I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice because of any delays as the Council ultimately decided enforcement action was not necessary.
13. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late. We are also unlikely to find fault by the Council and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman