The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs D complains about planning permission granted by the Council for development of a neighbouring site. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because he cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mrs D and she had the right to pursue a case in court.
The complaint
The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council incorrectly handled planning applications for a neighbouring site in 2019 and 2021. She says there was a boundary dispute, and she wants the Council to have the height of the neighbouring property lowered.
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) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe: it is unlikely further investigation will 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), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the information provided by Mrs D and the Council’s complaint responses.
I shared my draft decision with both parties.
What I found
In 2022 Mrs D complained to the Council about its decision to grant planning permission for development works to a neighbouring property. She referred to both an initial application in 2019 and a subsequent retrospective application in 2021. Mrs D said the Council should have investigated the boundary dispute she had with the neighbouring site. Whilst the finished property roof was in line with plans it seemed more overbearing because it was nearer to her home. She also said some consultation replies had been considered after the closing date. The Council responded in May and explained it would not look back to 2019. It was not under a duty to verify claims of ownership as part of the planning process and had not received any substantive evidence to support Mrs D’s case while deciding on the application. Mrs D pursued her complaint about the Council’s planning decision. The Council told her in June that a third party could only challenge a planning decision by going to court.
The Ombudsman expects a complaint to be made to him within 12 months of the problem arising. I see no basis to look back to events in 2019.
In respect of the 2021 application, I cannot see that further investigation is merited. We cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mrs D. The Council has no authority to require the roof be lowered once planning permission has been granted and the roof is the height set out in the approved plans. The key point of Mrs D’s case is she disputes the decisions made by the Council. The Ombudsman cannot overrule planning permission and nor can the Council. Mrs D did have the option of civil proceedings regarding both the boundary matter and the 2021 decision. The Ombudsman cannot replace the role of the courts.
Final decision
I have discontinued the investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman