Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because parts of the complaint are late. 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 dealt with planning applications for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council failed to consider his concerns about the development and the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with planning policy. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact 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
• 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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has raised many concerns about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development. However, I consider Mr X’s concerns about the original planning decision 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 the Council granted planning permission. Mr X knew about the application 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 sooner.
7. I have considered Mr X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with applications to amend the development. Mr X says the applications to amend the approved plans were not properly publicised and the impact on his property was not considered.
8. The Council says it erected a site notice. I understand Mr X says he should have been consulted. But even if the Council did not publicise the applications as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The case officer’s report for the first application to amend the plans referred to the impact on neighbouring properties. However, the officer decided the changes were acceptable. The most recent application to amend the proposal did not refer to all the surrounding properties. But the Council has explained in response to Mr X’s complaint why it considered the changes acceptable in planning terms.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council has properly considered the acceptability of the amended development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the applications or if the case officer’s report had included more detail.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman