The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the inclusion in the Council’s Local Plan of a safeguarding route which impacts upon Ms X’s property. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and because an investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to include in its Local Plan a safeguarding route which impacts upon her property and for which there was no proper technical assessment.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X’s representative, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s Local Plan, approved a number of years ago by the Planning Inspector, includes the safeguarding of a route for a bypass which covers Ms X’s property.
Over the years Ms X has sought to challenge the inclusion of the safeguarding policy. More recently her current representatives complained to the Council that there is no proper technical assessment to support the policy, that the Council misled Ms X by stating there was and that it has failed to remedy the situation by making a declaration that the policy is out of date and of no continuing effect.
The Council responded to the complaint and explained the plan was an adopted one which the Planning Inspector had approved several years ago. It said it could not change the plan outside normal procedures and that it would stand until it is replaced by the next plan, the preparation for which has already begun.
The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to this complaint because the inclusion of the safeguarding route in the Local Plan, and the Plan’s approval, took place several years ago and it is too late now for us to investigate this matter.
While Ms X’s frustration with her situation is understandable, the assessment of the Plan, the policies included in it and the level of supporting evidence required is a matter for Planning Inspectors to decide. While Ms X has complained about being misled by the Council as to the extent of the technical assessment for the policy, this is not an issue we will investigate in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the complaint is a late complaint and because an investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman