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

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. 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. (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. The Council received an application for outline planning permission for a site near Mr X’s home. The Council granted planning permission for the development. Following this, it approved a reserved matters application for the site.
8. Mr X has raised many concerns about the development and the impact it will have on his home. However, I consider Mr X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with the applications 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 permission for the development and Mr X has known about the development for more than 12 months. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
9. Furthermore, even if I did agree Mr X’s complaint was on time, my decision not to investigate would be the same. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mr X’s property. The case officer’s report for the reserved matters application referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the case officer decided the proposal would not cause a significant loss of light or privacy to neighbouring properties.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late. It is also unlikely I would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman