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

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with planning applications and breaches of planning control at a site next to his home. Mr X says the planning officer was unprofessional and the planning applications were not properly considered. Mr X also says the Council failed to properly investigate planning breaches at the site. Mr X says his home is impacted by the development and it has caused flooding issues at 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))
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council received a prior approval application from Mr X’s neighbour. Mr X has raised concerns about the Council’s decision to approve the application. However, I consider Mr X’s complaint about this matter 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. 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
8. I have considered Mr X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with the more recent applications for the site and breaches of planning control.
9. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
10. Mr X contacted the Council as the development was not being built in line with the approved plans. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and agreed there had been a breach of planning control. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a retrospective application to regularise the situation. However, planning permission was refused. A further application was then submitted. The Council was satisfied the amended application addressed the reasons for refusal and granted planning permission.
11. The Council has said it will not take further action in relation to the planning breaches. I understand Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision. But I am satisfied it properly considered if formal enforcement action was necessary and it is not unusual for councils to accept a retrospective application to remedy a planning breach. Councils also do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
12. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the retrospective planning application before granting permission for the development. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns he raised. The case officer also considered the impact the development would have on neighbouring properties and the area. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is unlikely we would find fault.
13. Mr X has complained the development causes flooding issues. However, concerns about property damage will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late. We are unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman