Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications. This is because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application and an application to discharge a planning condition for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council did not consider the concerns he raised about the development, and it did not properly assess the impact the development would have on his 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with the planning application for the development. However, I consider Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission for the development late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been more than a year since planning permission was granted. Mr X knew about the development at the time and objected to the proposal. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman about these issues sooner.
7. I have considered Mr X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with an application to discharge a planning condition. The condition related to a light management plan for the development. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application before deciding the information submitted was acceptable. The case officer’s report summarised the objections received, and the officer consulted the Council’s Environmental Protection Team before deciding the information was sufficient to discharge the condition. The Council was also satisfied the development had been carried out in line with the approved plans.
8. I understand Mr X may disagree. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the planning condition should be discharged and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it is tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the application, it is unlikely I would find fault.
9. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his information request. However, Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is concerned about how the Council dealt with his request as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman