Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint is late.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained on behalf of Mrs Y about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near Mrs Y’s home. Mr X says the new dwelling causes a significant loss of light to Mrs Y’s property and the Council did not support previous applications for the site due to the unacceptable impact.

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. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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 several years ago. Mrs Y knew about the application at the time and objected. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mrs Y could have complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission sooner.
7. Furthermore, even if I were to say Mrs Y’s complaint was in time, my decision not to investigate would be the same. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mrs Y’s property, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report said that due to the degree of separation and orientation of the development any shadowing or loss of light would not be significant.
9. Mr X says Mrs Y’s right to light has been breached. But right to light is not a planning matter and instead will be a private civil matter between Mrs Y and her neighbour.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because it is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman