Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because part of the complaint is late. Nor are we likely to find fault with the Council. And part of the complaint is a private matter between Mrs Q and her neighbours.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Mrs Q, complained about the London Borough of Croydon’s handling of her neighbours’ planning application. Mrs Q said

• the Council failed to notify her of the planning application and did not consider the application properly;
• it failed to oversee her neighbours’ project and, as a result, the project took too long, the site was unsightly, and there was a rat infestation; and
• her neighbours damaged her property and will encroach onto her land to fit drainage pipes.

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. (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 considered the information Mrs Q provided. I considered information available on the Council’s website, including the case officer’s report on the planning application complained of. And I considered Mrs Q’s response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Councils must advertise minor developments such as domestic extensions either by a site notice or by a neighbour notification letter.

What happened

6. In 2017 Mrs Q’s neighbours applied for planning permission to extend their property. The Council placed a notice on a nearby lamppost advertising the application and inviting comments on it. Mrs Q did not see the notice, so did not comment. The Council approved the application later in 2017.
7. In September 2018 Mrs Q’s neighbours told her they were about to start work on their extension. This was the first she knew about the approved application.
8. In 2020 Mrs Q contacted her neighbours about rats she had seen, which she thought were coming from exposed drains. She was also concerned about her neighbour’s untidy site, and how long it was taking them to complete their project.
9. In 2020 Mrs Q complained to the Council about its handling of her neighbours’ planning application. She complained the Council had not notified her directly about the application and had relied, instead, on a site notice. She said this was discriminatory and had denied her the opportunity to comment on the application. Mrs Q also complained about the accuracy of the case officer’s report on the application. In particular, she said the case officer failed to consider the impact of the development on her property and, instead, commented on the impact on a property that was unaffected by it.
10. In 2021 Mrs Q complained to us about

• the Council’s handling of the planning application
• its failure to oversee her neighbours’ project, which meant the project took too long, the site was unsightly, and there were rats coming from exposed pipes;
• the Council’s failures meant her neighbours had damaged her property and would encroach onto her land to fit drainage pipes.

11. In response to a draft of this decision Mrs Q explained why she did not complain to us sooner. She reiterated her concerns about the way the Council advertised the application and the case officer’s report. She also said her neighbours took a long time to progress the development and she wanted to support them with it. It was only when development finally got underway properly in 2020 that she realised how it would impact her. Until then, she understood the extension would be mainly glass and so she would not suffer loss of light.
12. Mrs Q also said she had reported the rat infestation to the Council. She said it was a live case which had escalated from the Pest Control Team to the Public Safety Team.

Assessment

13. We will not investigate this complaint.
14. Mrs Q is unhappy the Council did not directly notify her about her neighbour’s planning application. However, as the law allowed it to advertise the application either by a site notice or by neighbour notification letter, we are unlikely to find fault with it.
15. Mrs Q is also unhappy the case officer failed to consider the impact of the development on her property. I have read the case officer’s report. It is true the report refers to the wrong house number when describing Mrs Q’s property. But it is clear from the description that the case officer did, in fact, consider the impact of the development on Mrs Q’s property. So, again, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.
16. Even if this were not the case, however, the Council approved the planning application in 2017. And, although Mrs Q did not see the site notice advertising the application, she knew about it by September 2018 when her neighbours told her they were about to start work. Mrs Q did not complain to the Council for a further two years and did not complain to us until 2021. So this part of the complaint is late. I understand Mrs Q wanted to be a good neighbour and she did not fully understand the impact of the development until work started properly in 2020. However, it was open to Mrs Q to look at the approved plans – either her neighbours’ plans or those available to view on the Council’s website - once she found out about the development. Had she done so, she could have known about its impact on her own property sooner. In addition, a complaint about the Council’s handling of the application would not have prevented the development from progressing. Nor would her neighbours have known about the complaint unless she told them about it. So, as I said, this part of the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.
17. Mrs Q believes the Council should have monitored her neighbours’ project. That is not the case: there is no requirement for councils to monitor how planning applications are implemented once they have approved them. So we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for failing to monitor Mrs Q’s neighbours’ project when there was no requirement for it to do so.
18. Mrs Q said the Council’s Public Safety Team is now dealing with the rat infestation. However, she has not complained to the Council about the Pest Control Team or the Public Safety Team. If she is unhappy with their actions, she should complain to the Council first of all before bringing her complaint on this particular matter back to us.
19. Finally, Mrs Q is not happy her neighbours may encroach on her land to install drainage pipes and that they damaged her property with their building works. These are private matters between Mrs Q and her neighbours, and are not matters for the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman