Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the location of a public footpath. This is because the complaint is late.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained the Council has failed to honour the planning permission it granted him to build his home. Mr X says the matter has caused him considerable stress and the Council should compensate him for the value of his property.

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

Back to top

What I found

5. In the 1960s Mr X applied to the Council for planning permission to build a detached dwelling. The Council considered the application and granted planning permission. Shortly after this, Mr X built his new house.
6. In the 1990s Mr X contacted the Councill as a member of the public had entered his land looking for a public footpath. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and said his home had been built on a public right of way (PROW) and no application had been made to divert the public footpath. Mr X disputed this and said the plans approved by the Council for the house showed a PROW near his property, but this did not encroach on his land.
7. An officer from the Council visited Mr X and alternative locations for the PROW were considered. However, it was not possible to move the PROW from Mr X’s land as the landowner that would be affected by the move did not agree to the diversion. Instead, the footpath was diverted to another location in Mr X’s garden which was further away from his house. The Council paid for the cost of the diversion and offered to erect fencing to protect Mr X’s privacy.
8. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council has dealt with the matter. He says he was given permission to build his house in line with the approved plans. The plans did not show a PROW through his property and the Council should honour this.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate this complaint about the location of a PROW. This is because the complaint is late.
10. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. Mr X has known about the issues with the PROW since the 1990s and the path was diverted in 2009. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman about the matter sooner.
11. Furthermore, even if I could say the complaint was in time, my decision not to investigate would be the same as it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council. Mr X says the plans approved by the Council in the 1960s do not show a footpath over his land. But the Council has shown the PROW exists and provided evidence of its location at the time of Mr X’s planning application. Planning permission would not override this, and it would be the planning applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with any potential legal matters relating to a development site including the existence of any PROW. It is also the landowner’s responsibility to apply for any necessary diversions to the public footpath. I understand Mr X says he has recently discovered new information which contradicts the Council’s claims that the PROW was located over his land when planning permission was granted. However, if Mr X has new evidence in this regard, he should provide this to the Council to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman