Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a development next to the complainant’s home, and its failure to respond to his associated enquiries. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was determined, and the Council has apologised for failing to respond to his associated enquiries.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed/failed to respond to his enquiries about planning permission being granted for a development next to 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 can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way the Council made its decision. But 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)
5. And 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• information about the planning application and the Planning Committee decision, available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above appears to apply any parts of the complaint about the decision to approve the planning application. I understand Mr X became aware in February 2023 that the development had been approved, so he contacted the Council. Yet Mr X did not chase the Council for a response until January 2024. The Council replied in March 2024. When the Council failed to respond to his further enquiries, Mr X submitted a formal complaint in December 2024 and contacted the Ombudsman later that month.
8. I am unaware of any reasons why Mr X was prevented from contacting us sooner if he was unhappy about the planning application decision and the Council’s lack of response in early- 2023, so we would not exercise discretion to investigate the planning decision now.
9. And even if this time restriction did not apply, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
10. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was determined to justify starting an investigation. The Council sent a neighbour notification letter, and the previous owner of Mr X’s property submitted an objection. These objections, along with the other relevant material planning considerations, were taken into account when determining the application. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision so we cannot therefore criticise it.
11. If the development does not proceed in accordance with the approved plans, it is open to Mr X to report this to the Council’s planning enforcement team via its website.
12. Finally, the Council has apologised for the delays/failures in responding to Mr X’s enquiries about the site. The Council’s apology is a satisfactory way to address this part of the complaint, so we will not pursue it further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was determined, and the Council has apologised for failing to respond to his enquiries.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman