Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint is late. It is also unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms B has complained about how the Council has dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Ms B says the Council failed to follow the proper processes and the development will have a significant impact on her property.

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. (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 B and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. Ms B has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. But it has been more than 12 months since the Council granted planning permission for the development. Ms B knew about the application at the time and objected to the proposal. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate now as Ms B could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner about the issues.
7. Furthermore, even if I did agree the complaint was in time, my decision not to investigate would be the same. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the development would be acceptable in terms of the impact it would have on neighbouring occupiers.
8. Ms B says the development has impacted her right to light and the case officer did not visit her home to properly assess the application. However, while the Council needed to consider the impact the development will have on light, the Right to Light Act is not a material planning consideration and will instead be a private civil matter between the parties. There is also no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties and the acceptability of a proposal can often be determined from the development site.
9. I understand Ms B disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because the complaint is late. It is also unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman