Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a new house next to the complainant’s property, and its subsequent actions relating to the implementation of the development. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about the planning application decision, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in respect of the more recent events.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new house next to her property, and its handling of the subsequent implementation/commencement of the development.

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 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 the information submitted by Mrs X, as well as information about the planning applications relating to the site on the Council’s planning webpage.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above would apply to any concerns Mrs X has about the way the main planning application was determined. She objected to the application, and would presumably have been aware when it was approved in late-2018. I see no reasons why Mrs X might have been prevented from complaining to us sooner, so we will not start an investigation into any parts of the complaint about the decision to approve the development.
9. With regard to more recent events, such as the demolition of the existing building on site, or the breach of the external lighting condition, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to investigate these matters either.
10. The Council’s complaint responses explain the approval process for the demolition of the existing building on the site, and I see no evidence of fault in that regard.
11. Council’s also do not have the resources to monitor whether every development in its area is being progressed in accordance with the requirements of the planning permission. That means they are reliant to a significant extent on members of the public reporting breaches of planning control.
12. Where a suspected breach of planning control is reported, government guidance confirms that enforcement action is discretionary and planning authorities should act proportionately when responding. One option is to invite the submission of an application so the issues can be formally considered. Here, the applicant submitted a discharge of condition application. There is no requirement to formally notify neighbours of such an application. And, whilst Mrs X might disagree with the Council’s decision to retrospectively approve the lighting installed at the site, it was made by officers exercising their professional judgement; the merits of such judgements are not open to review by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have complained about some of the issues sooner, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in respect of the more recent events.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman