Summary: We 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 we are unlikely to find fault with the more recent issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application to extend a property near her home. Mrs X says the new extension is too close to her property and will have a significant impact on her privacy.

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 have considered Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered her comments in response.

Back to top

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 from the owners of a property near Mrs X’s home. The applicant sought permission to build a two-storey front, side and rear extension. Mrs X objected to the proposal and raised concerns about the impact it would have on her home. The Council considered the application and granted permission subject to conditions. In 2020, Mrs X complained to the Council after discovering other similar applications in the area where the Council had ensured greater separation distances remained between properties. Mrs X also complained the distance between her home and the new extension was much less than that allowed by other local planning authorities.

Assessment

7. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for an extension near Mrs X’s home. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and I am unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues complained about.
8. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. The Council granted planning permission for the extension in 2017. Mrs X was aware of the application at the time and objected to the proposal because of her concerns about the impact it would have on her property. Therefore, I consider Mrs X’s complaint about what happened in 2017, including the Council’s decision to grant planning permission, late and see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mrs X could have complained to the Ombudsman about these matters sooner.
9. I have considered the more recent issues Mrs X has complained about. Mrs X says she has discovered further information which shows the distance between her home and the extension is not adequate. This includes other similar applications considered by the Council and the recommended separation distances used by other local planning authorities. Mrs X says her neighbour has also recently had another application refused. One of the reasons for refusing permission was that the property does not have permitted development rights. Mrs X says the Council referred to permitted development rights to justify granting planning permission in 2017. Mrs X says this shows the decision making was flawed and she should be compensated for the impact on her property because of the Council’s error.
10. I have looked at the case officer’s report for the 2017 application. There is no suggestion the Council based its decision on an incorrect assumption regarding the existence of permitted development rights for the property. Mrs X has also referred to other recent planning decisions in the area. But the Council will need to consider each application on its own merits. There is also no requirement for it to follow any other local authorities’ guidance in relation to separation distances. Therefore, it is unlikely I could say the Council was at fault in relation to the recent issues Mrs X has complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because parts of the complaint are late. It is unlikely we would find fault with more recent issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman