Summary
Ms X complains about planning permission granted for a development near her. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault causing injustice to her in the way the Council has considered enforcement matters.
The complaint
Ms X complains about planning permission granted for a development near her.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I considered the complainant’s comments on my draft decision.
My assessment
The Council granted planning permission in November 2020 for a variation of planning conditions to a building at the end of a road near her.
I consider that any complaint about the planning permission could reasonably have been made to this office within 12 months of the decision and so the planning permission itself is out of time and out of jurisdiction. The site itself is too far away from Ms X’s property to cause any significant loss of amenity to her.
Ms X says that an unauthorised 1.8m high fence has been erected on the roadside which has caused highway access problems. The Council says that they consulted the Highways Officer who commented that the proposed development would be an improvement on the visual access previously provided and the visibility splay is acceptable in highway terms. The Council’s decision that no enforcement action was considered necessary was therefore made without administrative fault and cannot therefore be questioned by the Ombudsman.
Ms X refers to the position of a caravan associated with the development works. However, given the distance from Ms X’s home, I am not persuaded that there is such significant injustice caused to her by this to warrant investigation.
Final decision
I do not intend to investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault causing significant injustice to her.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman