Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s grant of planning permission for construction of a property he bought as a new-build four years ago. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council granted planning permission for a developer to build a property too close to the public highway. Mr X has since bought the property and complains he suffers noise from heavy goods vehicles using the road to access nearby business premises.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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 considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X bought his property in 2019 and would have known about its proximity to the highway at that time. He complained to the Council in 2023 and said he had been suffering with noise with for the past three years, but he did not bring his complaint to us until September 2023. The complaint is therefore some three years late. We do have discretion to investigate late complaints but I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion in this case.
6. There is also not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. The planning officer’s report notes the proximity between Mr X’s property and the highway but concludes the proposal is acceptable. This decision is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no basis for us to question it.
7. The Council acknowledges Mr X’s property as-built is closer to the highway than approved but it has explained the breach is not significant enough to pursue. This is a decision it is entitled to reach and any enforcement action at this stage would likely be against Mr X as the current owner of the property. It would not therefore be in Mr X’s best interests to pursue formal enforcement action and such action would not achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is for measures such as additional soundproofing, triple glazing and an air conditioning system to reduce the need to open the windows.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman