Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise its discretion to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. The Council took the decision in 2013. Mrs X wants the planning permission ‘reversed’ and the extension knocked down.

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’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I looked at the relevant planning documents and gave Mrs X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X complains that in 2013, the Council approved a planning application from a neighbour to build an extension. Mrs X says the extension has been built on land subject to a restricted covenant and it affects her privacy. Mrs X says the architect involved in the project did not properly consider party wall legislation, and the extension has reduced the value of her property.
7. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. I see no reason Mrs X could not have complained to the Council, and the Ombudsman much earlier, and so the exception at paragraph 3 applies to her complaint.
8. But even if the complaint was not late, it is unlikely we would investigate. The planning officer’s report shows Mrs X submitted comments on the proposal when her neighbour made the planning application. The officer considered Mrs X’s comments, but decided they were not enough to refuse the application. The officer explained that covenants are civil matters, and not for the Council to enforce. The same applies to party wall legislation, and loss in a property’s value is not a material planning consideration. The officer considered local and national policy and decided to approve the application. This is a decision the Council was entitled to take, and without fault in how a council has made a decision, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. This applies here. We also have no powers to tell a council to ‘reverse’ a planning decision or that a development should be demolished. We could not therefore achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise its discretion to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman