Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning approvals. This is because it is late and we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council did not adequately consider his objections when granting planning permission to a neighbouring property. He says the case officer’s report did not address the light specific concerns or his request for a site visit. He says the resultant development has affected light levels 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 investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complains that the Council did not adequately consider his objections when granting planning permission to a neighbouring property.
9. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. Mr X objected to the planning application more than a year ago and the decision to approve the application was published on the Council’s website at the time. I consider that he was able to complain to the Ombudsman sooner and see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.
10. I understand Mr X says he did not know the application had been approved and may have only become aware of the extent of the impact more recently. However, even if I did consider Mr X’s complaint on time, my decision not to investigate would be the same.
11. Mr X says the case officer’s report did not address light specific concerns or his request for a site visit.
12. The Council has provided evidence that it considered Mr X’s concerns about light when deciding the planning application. There is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties when assessing a planning application. The Council has made site visits in response to Mr X’s complaints and it has explained in detail why planning regulations required it to approve the application.
13. The Council has also considered how earlier permissions, granted when Mr X extended his own property, had contributed to the situation. It made changes to the advice it will give when granting similar approvals in future as a result.
14. I understand that Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of the planning application, however, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to make decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council has properly considered the application, it is unlikely that we will find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late and we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman