Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a neighbouring extension. This is because part of the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to investigate it now and there is not enough evidence of fault in the more recent aspect of the complaint to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with a planning application by his neighbour for an extension. Mr X says the Council:
1. Failed to attach the correct drawings to the planning application.
2. Failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about a flue added to the extension that is causing him concern.
2. Mr X says the Council took too long to deal with his complaint and did not investigate it properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I will deal with the complaint in two parts: -

a. Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to attach the correct drawings to the planning application.

8. This aspect of the complaint is late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman from the date they became aware of the issue. Mr X knew about the planning application in September 2023 and objected to the proposed development. Mr X did not complain to the Council until a year after the decision was made. Mr X took over two years to complete the Council’s complaints procedure and did not complain to us until October 2025.
9. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate the complaint now. There is no good reason why Mr X could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.

b. Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to respond to his complaint about a flue added to the extension which is now causing him concern.

10. Mr X would only have been aware of this issue when the extension was built. Mr X raised it later in the complaint’s procedure, so this part of the complaint is not late.
11. Mr X says the flue blows out vapour at the side of his house which causes him concern about air pollution. The evidence shows that the Council arranged for a Planning Enforcement Officer to visit to assess the flue and for a Building Control Manager to assess photos. It took the view that the flue constituted permitted development under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The Council also says that Environmental Health have confirmed the vapour coming out of the flue is mainly water vapour and is not a risk. That being the case, there was no basis on which it could take action.
12. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the flue constituted permitted development. The Council has investigated Mr X’s concern about pollution and provided a reasonable and proportionate response. That being the case, the Ombudsman’s intervention is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because (a) the complaint to us about the failure to attach the correct drawings to the planning application, is late and (b) there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his complaint about the flue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman