Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for a new property close to her home. Part of the complaint is late. We have seen nothing to suggest other fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss B, complains the Council:
• Should not have granted planning permission for a new property close to her own;
• Ignored her attempts to resolve problems; and
• Advised the new owner to apply to remove a planning condition, rather than enforce it.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss B and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2017, the Council received a planning application for a new house next to Miss B’s home. It sought the views of neighbours, including Miss B. Miss B did not object.
8. The Council granted planning permission in 2017. As it is more than 12 months since planning permission was granted, a complaint about the decision is late. I have considered whether we should exercise our discretion to investigate the late complaint, but I have seen no good reasons to do so.
9. A condition on the planning permission states first floor windows in all but the west facing elevation must have obscure glazing and be fixed shut unless over 1.7 metres above floor level.
10. Miss B told the Council the window opposite her home is not fixed shut. She says this allows occupants to see into her home, invading her privacy.
11. The Council contacted the owner of the property who has put in a retrospective application to correct the breach of planning control.
12. Miss B is unhappy the Council has accepted a retrospective application instead of taking enforcement action.
13. Government guidance stresses the importance of effective enforcement action to preserve public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
14. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against planning enforcement decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
15. In this case the Council has received a retrospective planning application from the neighbour to see if it will consider approval for the opening window, notwithstanding the failure to comply with the existing planning condition.
16. The Council’s actions are not therefore fault. Any injustice depends on the outcome of the current, retrospective planning application. If Miss B remains unhappy with the decision she may make a further complaint to us.
17. The Council has also confirmed that parking spaces on the road in front of the new house remain part of the highway and there is nothing to prevent any car from parking there.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because part of the complaint is late. There is nothing to suggest other fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman