Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application for a development in the area where the complainant lives. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about a planning application for a development in the area where she lives. Ms X says planning conditions have not been complied with as the development did not start before the permission expired or pre-commencement conditions were discharged. Ms X says the developer should submit a new application for the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a planning application for a development in the area where Ms X lives. The Council refused the application, but planning permission was granted following an appeal to the Planning Inspector. The permission was subject to conditions. One of the conditions said the development must start within three years. Other conditions needed to be discharged before the development could commence.
6. Ms X says the planning permission has expired as work did not start within three years as required. However, the Council has explained why it is satisfied it received acceptable information to show the permission was implemented before it expired. The Council has accepted the pre-commencement conditions were not discharged before the permission expired. Caselaw has established that a development has not usually been lawfully commenced if the pre-commencement conditions have not been complied with. However, there are exceptions to this principle, and I am satisfied the Council has properly explained why it considers these apply in the circumstances.
7. I understand Ms X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if the development had been lawfully implemented, it is unlikely I would find fault.
8. Ms X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman