Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Ms X says the development will cause significant overlooking and loss of light to her home and her property will lose value. Ms X has also complained about how the new properties will be numbered and the disruption that has been caused during construction.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with the planning application. However, I consider Ms X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with the application late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been a few years since the Council granted permission for the development and Ms X knew about the application at the time. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Ms X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
8. Furthermore, even if I did agree the complaint was in time, my decision not to investigate would be the same. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the impact on neighbouring amenity would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. I understand Ms X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and 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.
9. Ms X says her home will lose value and is concerned her property may be damaged. However, loss of property value is not a material planning matter and claims of property damage will be a private civil matter between Ms X and the developer.
10. The Council has recently given permission to the developer to amend parts of the approved scheme. Ms X says she was not consulted about the changes. But the Council was entitled to decide the proposed changes were not material and there is no requirement for it to consult residents when it receives a non-material amendment application.
11. Ms X has complained about how the new properties will be numbered. But I am satisfied the new dwellings will be numbered in line with the Council’s policy. The Council also looked into Ms X’s concerns about disruption during the construction of the development and met with the developer to address the issues raised.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late and we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman