Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement as a flood risk consultee on a planning application she made to a different authority. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. Mrs X applied to the local planning authority (LPA) for planning permission for a new house on land she owned. Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) was the consultee on the application for flood risk issues.
2. Mrs X complains the NCC wrongly stated in its response to the planning application that her property floods.
3. Mrs X says she wasted months appealing the LPA’s refusal of her application to the Planning Inspectorate, lost two sales of the property due to the flood risk issue, and had to sell at a greatly reduced price.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We would not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X applied for planning permission to the relevant LPA in 2023. NCC was the flood risk consultee on the application. This means the LPA sought NCC’s comments and opinions on the issue as part of the planning process. It was the LPA which decided Mrs X’s planning application, not NCC. The LPA considered her application, including the flooding issue and NCC’s consultee comments, and refused several months later in 2023.
8. Mrs X brought her complaint to us 18 months after the planning refusal. We expect people to bring complaints to us about something they believe a council has done wrong within 12 months of them becoming aware of the matter complained of. As the planning applicant, Mrs X would have been aware of NCC’s actions relating to her application by autumn 2023. Therefore, her complaint made to us 18 months after the planning decision is late.
9. We may apply our discretion to consider a late complaint if we are satisfied there are good reasons to do so. There are no such good reasons here. Even if Mrs X’s complaint had not been late, we would not have investigated.
10. Mrs X has challenged the entire planning process, including NCC’s position on the flood risk to the development, by appealing to the Planning Inspectorate. An investigation by us of the Council’s involvement as the flood risk consultee would not now add to the Inspectorate’s professional consideration of and decision on her entire application, nor achieve any different or additional worthwhile outcome for Mrs X which her appeal has not already provided.
11. We also note Mrs X claims the Council’s flooding consultee responses resulted in her needing to appeal to the Inspectorate against the LPA’s planning refusal, delays in selling the site, and a reduced sale price. But the LPA gave several material planning reasons in its refusal, not just flood risk. So even if the flooding issue had not been an LPA refusal reason, Mrs X would still have had to appeal to overcome the other planning refusal grounds used. We could not have found the involvement of NCC caused any of the injustices Mrs X has claimed.
12. There are no good reasons for us to investigate Mrs X’s late complaint now so will not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman