Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications and possible breaches of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late. We are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with planning applications and possible breaches of planning control at a site in the area where he lives.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control at a site in the area where he lives. However, I consider Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s enforcement investigations late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been many years since the possible breaches were investigated by the Council. Mr X was aware of the issues at the time. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
8. I have considered the concerns Mr X has raised about the more recent applications to change the use of a building and an application to remove a planning condition. Mr X says the decision to approve the applications was based on incorrect information about previous planning breaches at the site. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the applications before granting permission. The case officer’s reports referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The case officer assessed the prior approval application against the relevant legislation and explained why the planning condition previously imposed on the site would no longer be necessary.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decisions to approve the applications. But it was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the applications were acceptable. As the Council properly considered the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Furthermore, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice because of the alleged fault. He does not live near the application site and will not be impacted by the development.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about and Mr X has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman