The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because part of the complaint is late. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X has raised concerns about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. However, I consider Mr X’s complaint about the original application for the development late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. The Council granted planning permission for the development a few years ago. Mr X knew about the application and objected to the proposal at the time and I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
I have considered the concerns Mr X has raised about the application to amend the approved plans. Mr X says the Council did not notify him about this application and the changes will increase the impact on his home.
Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development and type of application. In this case, the Council says it wrote to Mr X. I understand Mr X disputes this. However, even if I could say the Council did not tell Mr X about the application as it should have, I could not say he has been caused any significant injustice as a result.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area, neighbouring properties, highway safety and parking before granting planning permission. The Council also addressed the impact on Mr X’s home in its complaint response and said the changes to the plans would not materially harm his amenity and the new dormers will be modest in scale and far enough away to prevent undue harm.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant permission for the amended application. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the application, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had Mr X known about the application and objected to the proposal.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late. Mr X has not been caused significant injustice because of the remaining issues complained about.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman