Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development next to the complainants. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainants to have contacted the Ombudsman sooner, and there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused them an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I refer to as Mr & Mrs X, raise concerns about the Council’s handling of their neighbour’s planning application.

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. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We can 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. And 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr & Mrs X.
7. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the neighbour’s planning applications on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above applies to any parts of the complaint about the Council approving the neighbour’s planning application in September 2021. Mr & Mrs X corresponded with the Council in October 2021 about its consideration of their objections, yet they did not contact the Ombudsman until April 2023. I see no reasons why they were prevented from contacting the Ombudsman sooner, so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.
9. And even if the time restriction did not apply, I do not consider any errors in the Council’s handling of their objection letter affected the outcome of the application. The Council had regard to the relevant, material planning considerations in making its decision, and was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on whether the proposal was acceptable. Issues such as ‘rights to light’, covenants, private access rights/encroachment, and disruption during building work, were not matters the Council could take into account when determining this planning application. As such, the failure to take Mr & Mrs X’s objection into account has not caused them a significant injustice, as the planning application is likely to have been approved even if their letter had been considered.
10. Furthermore, issues such as damage caused to Mr & Mrs X’s property during the subsequent construction process, or obstruction of a shared access, would be private, civil matters. They are not something the Council would become involved with, so I do not consider it has acted with fault in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect them to have contacted the Ombudsman sooner, and there is not enough evidence that any fault by the Council has caused them an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman