Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because parts of the complaint are late and it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in relation to the more recent issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application for a development near his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

What I found

5. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.

What happened

6. In 2017, the Council received a planning application to build six houses at a site near Mr X’s home. The application was referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination and permission was granted subject to conditions.
7. Following the committee meeting, residents complained to the Council. They said they had been treated unfairly during the meeting and information from the Fire Authority had not been made available. In response to the complaint, the Council decided to refer the application back for a second committee meeting. The members voted again and granted planning permission for the development.
8. In 2018, the developer made another planning application for the site. Ground works had been started for the previous development. However, the new application sought to make changes to the original plans reducing the number of houses to four. Mr X objected to the new application and raised concerns about access for emergency vehicles. He also said the proposed houses would be overbearing and would encroach on a third party’s land. The Council considered the application and planning permission was granted subject to conditions.
9. Mr X has complained about how the Council considered the 2017 planning application. He also remains concerned about the impact the development approved in 2019 will have on access for emergency vehicles.

Assessment

10. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a site near Mr X’s home. This is because parts of the complaint are late. It is also unlikely I would find fault by the Council in relation to the more recent issues.
11. Many of the issues raised by Mr X relate to the Council’s decision to grant planning permission in 2017. He says the Council failed to properly publicise the application. He has also raised concerns about the planning committee meeting. The Ombudsman will not investigate these issues as this part of the complaint is late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. The issues Mr X has complained about occurred in 2017 and are therefore late. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these matters as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
12. Furthermore, even if it could be said that the issues raised about the first planning application were in time, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice by the Council’s actions. The development approved in 2017 has not been built and instead permission has been given for an amended development at the site.
13. Mr X has also raised concerns about the 2018 application. He says the new development will not allow access for emergency vehicles. However, it is unlikely I could say the Council is at fault in this regard. It consulted the Fire Authority about the development and no objections were raised. The Council also commissioned a survey to ensure the development allowed adequate width between the properties to allow access for emergency vehicles. As the Council properly considered this issue before granting planning permission it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because parts of the complaint are late and the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault in relation to the remaining issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman