Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a 2016 planning application for a development to the rear of Ms X’s property. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council in relation to its more recent response to Ms X’s concerns.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council approved a planning application in 2016 which allowed a new dwelling to be built close to the rear of her property. She says it did not take into account the elevation of her home and as a result her property is overlooked. It also failed to consider the noise impact on her home of a heat pump installed close to her boundary.

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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its responses to her complaint.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Ms X’s complaint concerning the Council’s consideration of the 2016 planning application. A planning officer discussed Ms X’s concerns with her during the consideration of the application and two visits were made to Ms X’s property to assess the impact of the development from her perspective. As we would reasonably have expected Ms X to have complained to us sooner, this matter falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
9. In relation to Ms X’s contact in 2022, the Council visited the site again but found no evidence of planning breaches. It considered the positioning of the heat pump but advised Ms X that the installation was likely to be permitted development and so did not require planning permission. It also told Ms X that even if it did not meet the criteria for permitted development works, the pump was away from the main living areas of her property and that it would not be expedient to take enforcement action in relation to it. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take, and we cannot question the merits of it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council in relation to its more recent response to Ms X’s concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman