The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or possible breach of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and we are unlikely to find fault in relation to the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. The complainant has also not been caused significant injustice because of the Council’s delays. We cannot consider issues the complainant raised about her planning application as she has appealed to the Planning Inspector.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near her home. She says its decision to grant permission was not consistent with its decision to refuse her planning application.
Mrs X has also complained the development has not been built in line with the approved plans and says the new dwellings are higher than they should be causing her property to be overlooked. Mrs X says the Council took too long to look into her concerns and she is unhappy with its decision not to take formal enforcement action.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X has complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development near her home. However, I consider this part of the complaint late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. The Council granted planning permission for the development more than 12 months ago. Mrs X knew about the application at the time and objected. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mrs X could have complained to the Ombudsman about the matter sooner.
We also cannot investigate any concerns Mrs X has raised about her planning application. This is because Mrs X appealed to the Planning Inspector about the Council’s decision and the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters where someone has already used their appeal right.
I have considered Mrs X’s concerns about how the Council dealt with a possible breach of planning control.
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 or not complied with the approved plans. Councils do not need to take formal action just because there has been a breach of planning control. It is also for the council to decide if there has been a breach and if it is expedient to take further action.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered if it should take enforcement action before deciding this was not necessary. An officer visited the site in response to Mrs X’s concerns. However, the Council decided there was no breach that required further action and Mrs X’s amenities were being protected as intended.
I understand Mrs X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it had no grounds on which to take enforcement action. As the Council properly considered if enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Mrs X says the Council took too long to look into her concerns about the possible planning breach. However, I do not consider Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice because of the Council’s delays as it ultimately decided enforcement action was not necessary. Furthermore, the Council has apologised and explained the steps it will take to prevent the same issues happening again.
Mrs X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action and Mrs X has not suffered significant injustice because of any delays by the Council. Mrs X’s concerns about the planning decision are late and we cannot consider issues relating to the Council’s decision to refuse her application as she has appealed to the Planning inspector.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman