Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and breaches of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late. It is unlikely I would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application and breaches of planning control at a site near his home. Mr X says the development causes significant noise disturbance and impacts 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))

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. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home and says residents were not notified about the planning committee meeting so were not present when the application was approved. However, I consider Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with the planning application late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been more than a year since the Council granted planning permission and Mr X knew about the application at the time. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
7. The permission for the development was subject to conditions, some of which needed to be discharged before the development was in use. Mr X says the Council allowed the site to be used before the necessary conditions were complied with.
8. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result.
9. Mr X says the use of the site before the planning conditions were complied with caused noise issues. But councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a planning breach. The Council has explained why it did not consider it necessary to take enforcement action and it was entitled to decide not to take formal action while applications to discharge the planning conditions were pending. The Council also asked the site owner to stop using the site following noise complaints. As the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action, it is unlikely I would find fault. The Council also considered complaints about noise from the site but decided the noise did not amount to a statutory nuisance. I understand Mr X may disagree, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late. We are unlikely to find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman