Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a planning application for new houses behind the complainant’s home. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for new housing to the rear of his property. He says the development significantly compromises his privacy, and has caused flooding of his back garden.

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. In that regard, 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:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included its complaint responses.
• information about the planning application on the Council's website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The time limit referred to in paragraph 4 above applies to Mr X’s complaint. This is because the application was determined in early-2022, yet Mr X did not contact us until May 2024. I see no good reasons why he was prevented from contacting us sooner, so we will not exercise discretion to investigate the way the Council determined this application.
8. And even if the time restriction did not apply, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against decisions on planning applications. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was determined to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• There was no statutory requirement to visit Mr X when determining the planning application.
• The Council’s planning policy normally requires a separation distance of 21m between facing habitable room windows. The distance between Mr X’s home and the new dwellings is 25m.
• The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is not within an Area of Critical Drainage. As such, a Flood Risk Assessment was not required as part of the application. The proposals also showed surface water would be drained via a soak-away. If Mr X believes the development is causing flooding on his property, that would be a civil matter between him and the developer/owner.
• The proposed plans showed the removal of trees along the boundary with Mr X’s property, and the application was accompanied by a Tree Survey. The Council received no objection to the proposal from its Trees officer.
• The officer’s report considers the impact of the proposal on the character/appearance of the area, on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings, and on trees. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on these issues, even if Mr X disagrees with the decision it reached.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner and, in any case, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman