The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications and breaches of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
The complaint
Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with planning applications and breaches of planning control. Mr X says his property has been impacted by the Council’s actions and he has been caused stress by the matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended) The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about: Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission A decision to refuse planning permission Conditions placed on planning permission A planning enforcement notice.
We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X has complained about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against him. He disputes there have been planning breaches and says he has evidence to show his home has permitted development rights. However, if Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision to take enforcement action, he could have appealed to the Planning Inspector. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
Mr X has also complained about planning applications for sites near his home. He says his property is impacted by the developments and the Council’s planning decisions have caused parking issues which have contributed to one of the alleged planning breaches. However, I consider Mr X’s complaints about these matters late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been more than a year since the Council considered the planning applications and Mr X has known about the issues he has complained about for some time. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman about these matters sooner.
I have considered Mr X’s concerns about a more recent application for a development near his home. However, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report summarised resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The case officer also set out how the development had changed from a previously refused scheme for the site. The case officer decided the development would not result in significant loss of amenity for local residents.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of the complaint are late, and Mr X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman