Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint is late. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Ms X says the Council failed to consider her objections and the development will impact traffic, noise, and cause flooding.

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 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)
4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with the outline planning application and reserved matters application for the development. However, I consider Ms X’s concerns about these matters late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been significantly more than a year since the Council granted permission for the development. Ms X knew about the applications at the time and objected. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate now as Ms X could have complained to the Ombudsman about the issues sooner.
8. Furthermore, even if I did agree the complaint was in time, my decision not to investigate would be the same.
9. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting permission. The case officer’s reports for the outline application and the application for reserved matters addressed the objections raised by residents including concerns about noise, traffic and flood risk. The Council also consulted the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority about the proposal before deciding it was acceptable. The impact on flooding was also considered as part of the application to discharge the planning conditions.
10. The Council has accepted that a sequential test should have been carried out before it determined the outline planning application to consider if there were any more suitable sites to accommodate the development. However, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of this error as the Council has explained why this did not impact the planning decision. The relevant consultees were also satisfied with the proposal and the impact it would have on flooding.
11. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the complaint is late. Ms X has also not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman