Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning applications and a planning enforcement matter relating to the development approved. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council used the same officer to consider a planning application, assess a breach of planning control concerning the development approved and then to determine an application for planning permission to ‘regularise’ the development and retain it as-built. He says the Council did not visit his property and failed in its duty of care to protect historic assets and to minimise impact on a conservation area. He also complains the Council failed to respond to his complaint in-time. He says the development approved affects his privacy and he would like it to be removed or for the Council to contribute to screening to restore his privacy.

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 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 or continue 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted planning permission for Mr X’s neighbour to extend their property in 2021. Mr X did not complain about this decision at the time but has included reference to it in this complaint, which he lodged on 25 January 2024. We will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about this decision as they are late and I have seen nothing to show it would not have been reasonable for Mr X to raise them sooner.
7. Mr X’s complaint also deals with the Council’s handling of the planning enforcement investigation at his neighbour’s property but we will not consider this point further as it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome by doing so. This is because Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to ‘regularise’ the development and retain it as-built; this led to a fresh decision on whether what they had built was acceptable and the Council decided it was. Its reasons for its decision are set out in the planning officer’s report, which is available on the Council’s website, and I have seen no basis for us to criticise it.
8. Mr X believes the Council was wrong to use the same officer to deal with the planning applications and the planning enforcement case but I have seen nothing to suggest it was, or that it wrongly affected the decision to grant planning permission. The Council confirms other officers have reviewed the decision and agree with it and it is therefore unlikely we could say the outcome would or should have been different, even if another officer been responsible for it.
9. Mr X is also unhappy that the officer did not visit his property and believes they failed to properly consider the impact of the development on his privacy. But there was no obligation for the officer to carry out a site visit or to visit Mr X’s property. Mr X clearly set out his concerns about the impact of the development and provided photos to show the impact on his privacy and the officer took this into account in determining the application. Their report explains the reasons for its decision and without evidence of fault in the way it was reached we cannot criticise it.
10. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman