Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application in 2019. This complaint was brought to our attention late, outside our 12-month time limit, and we have seen no good reason to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that three years ago, the Council approved a revised set of plans when it granted permission for his neighbour’s extension and roof terrace, without informing neighbours.
2. The Council has since approved a further application of similar size to the original plans, but with minor changes. Mr X says the development will affect his amenities in terms of overbearing impact, overshadowing and overlooking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
10. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers.
11. Developers sometimes find it necessary to make changes and sometimes this happens during the planning application process.
12. If the Council decides the changes are ‘material’, it may require that the whole process begins again with a fresh application. However, if the changes are considered ‘non-material’ the Council may allow changes without re-starting the process. This type of amendment is known as a non-material amendment.
13. Councils may also decide that very minor changes are so insignificant, they require no procedural action. Planners often refer to this type of change as ‘de minimis’.
14. Not all planning decisions are made by council planning committees. Councils may delegate decisions to planning officers to make, that are restricted to circumstances set out in delegation schemes. Delegation schemes are found in a council’s constitution.

What happened

15. In 2019 Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for an extension and roof terrace. Mr X objected to the application. Late in the process, the Council received a revised plan, which it considered and approved. An officer approved the application, using delegated powers.
16. In 2021 the neighbour submitted an application to vary the plans that had been approved. The changes included higher opening heights for side windows and an obscure glazing to the side of the balcony. This application was also approved.
17. Case officer reports for these applications show Mr X’s concerns and the impact the development would have on his amenities, were considered before permissions were granted.

My findings

18. The Ombudsman’s powers are subject to time limits. We do not normally investigate matters unless they are brought to our attention within 12 months from when events occurred or the complainant could have known about them. We have discretion to go back beyond this limit but would need a good reason to do so.
19. We should not investigate late complaints or complaints that relate to matters that occurred long ago, unless:
• we are confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
• we are satisfied that the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.
20. I decided not to investigate this complaint further, and my reasons are as follows:
• We normally only investigate complaints that are brought to our attention within our 12-month time limit. The original planning decision was made three years ago, and Mr X has not provided a good reason for coming to us sooner.
• Since the original application was approved, the Council has considered and approved a revised planning application to vary approved plans. This decision supersedes the earlier approval. Mr X is not complaining there was fault in the decision making process leading up to approval of this more recent application.
• Councils are entitled to approve applications where revised plans are received during the decision making process. I can see the Council considered Mr X’s amenities before it made its decisions. In these circumstances, even if we were to investigate further, it is unlikely we would be able to find fault or recommend a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I ended my investigation because Mr X’s complaint about the original application was late in coming to our attention, and he is not complaining there was fault in the decision making process for the most recent decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman