Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application on land opposite his home. We did not investigate further because this is a late complaint and further investigation is unlikely to result in a meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve planning permission for a house on land opposite his home.
2. Mr X also says the Council discharged planning conditions relating to a construction management plan and drainage arrangements without notifying the public.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. 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

6. 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.
7. I gave the Council and Mr X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
11. Not all planning decisions are made by council planning committees. Councils may delegate decisions to planning officers to make some decisions, restricted to circumstances set out in delegation schemes. Delegation schemes are found in a council’s constitution.
12. Decisions on whether planning condition requirements are met are usually made by officers using delegated powers.

What happened

13. Three years ago, the Council approved a planning application to build a house on land opposite Mr X’s home. Before this decision was made, the site had been the subject of several other applications, some of which were refused by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal hearing.
14. Mr X does not claim to be personally affected by the new house but is part of a group that in the past helped maintain a community asset building. Mr X says he believes the new house will damage this building, particularly as wildflowers and trees once provided a pleasant outlook from it.
15. Before a decision was made a planning case officer wrote a report. The case officer report included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• a summary of relevant planning history, including a decision by the Planning Inspectorate;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees, including some about the impact the development would have on the community asset building;
• relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the principle of development, views from public areas, the impact on residential amenities and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
16. The Council approved the application subject to the conditions that had been recommended.
17. Later, the Council received details from the applicant to satisfy planning conditions relating to drainage and a construction management plan. The Council considered the details and was satisfied with them, so discharged these conditions.

My findings

18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Mr X fails both tests. I do not consider we are likely to reach a meaningful decision, because:
• we cannot quash the decision, only the high court can do this when exercising its judicial review function;
• Mr X was not caused a personal injustice by what has happened;
• Mr X is disappointed the land around the community asset has changed, quite possibly for the worst, but the Council was aware of his concerns before it made its decision. We are not an appeal body to judgements such as these;
• the case officer’s report shows the material issues were considered before a decision was made, so it is unlikely we would find fault in the decision-making process.
21. Mr X says he did not come to us sooner because it took him time to put his complaint together and go through the complaint process. He also says it takes him more time to do everyday things, because he is a carer for another person.
22. Mr X took 20 months, nearly twice our normal time limit, to bring his complaint to our attention. He may have spent a lot of time compiling his complaint, but we do not need a large amount of information to begin an investigation, as most planning decision information is easily available on the internet. I appreciate Mr X’s personal circumstances may be more difficult than some other individual’s, but I think he could have brought his complaint to our attention sooner.
23. For these reasons, Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve the planning application is late and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a meaningful outcome.
24. Mr X also complained he was not informed about the Councils decision to consider and approve planning condition details. The Council was not obliged to consult the public before it made this decision, so I find no fault in the way it has acted.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I ended my investigation because the complaint is late and further investigation is unlikely to result in a different or meaningful outcome for the complainant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman