Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. This is because parts of the complaint are late and for the remainder there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider objections and planning policy when granting planning permission to a nearby property.
2. He says this impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and has established a precedent for further similar developments.
3. He would like the Council to revoke the permissions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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), section 34(B))

7. 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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with an application for an agricultural building and the impact the development has on highway visibility. Mr X also complained a planning condition for the development was not complied with.
11. I consider Mr X’s complaint about this application and possible planning breach late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. The Council granted permission for the development several years ago. It has also been more than a year since Mr X reported the possible breach to the Council and it told him it would not take enforcement action. Mr X has known about the issues he has raised about the application and visibility for several years. Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
12. If Mr X believes there have been further planning breaches at the site, he can report these to the Council’s enforcement team to investigate.
13. Mr X has also complained about a more recent application for the site. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider objections or follow relevant planning policy in deciding the application, particularly in relation to impacts on the local area and the effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
14. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
15. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed resident’s objections and referred to the relevant policies before deciding the proposal would be acceptable. Mr X has said the application will set a precedent for similar developments. But the Council will need to consider each application it receives on its own merits.
16. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late and for the remainder there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman