Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council changed a planning condition and reissued the decision notice for a local development. The matter does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice which would warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives some distance from a farm, served by the same public road. The farm owner sought permission for a new building, which the Council granted with conditions.
2. Mr X complains the Council incorrectly withdrew and reworded a valid planning Decision Notice for the development.
3. Mr X considers the Council should enforce the condition as originally written, or follow the proper planning procedure to amend the notice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council granted conditional permission for the development last year. The decision notice included a condition, worded in such a way to prevent the development from commencing within three years of the grant of permission. The Council says that had not been the intention of the condition. It reissued the notice and reworded the condition. The new wording now required the development to commence within three years of the grant of permission.
7. Even if there is fault by the Council in either:
• the way it initially worded the decision notice condition; or
• the actions officers took to amended the condition;

this matter does not cause significant personal injustice to Mr X which would justify an Ombudsman investigation.

8. I say this because the development, whether it is built within or after three years of gaining its permission, will have no significant impact on Mr X or his home. Mr X says there is a ‘contiguous boundary between the site’ and his property, and the ‘development on this site directly impacts’ his dwelling. But while Mr X’s property might share a boundary with farmland owned by the planning applicant, the location of the development site which is the subject of the planning permission is hundreds of metres from his house. So the development on the proposed outlined planning site does not directly impact the amenity of his property, for example by overshadowing it or being overbearing.
9. I realise Mr X may consider his being able to see the planned new building from some parts of his property is an injustice. But the planning system does not enshrine a right to a particular view, or an unchanging view, for existing residents. A view of a new building is not a material planning harm issue for the Council to have considered. There is no sufficient injustice to Mr X stemming from it which would justify our investigation.
10. Mr X says the development is also visible from a designated conservation area, in which his house and others are located. A conservation area designation aims to protect or improve the characteristics of the built environment within that area, not prevent all building distantly visible from within that area. Had the proposed development been much closer to the conservation area, officers would have considered its impact on the existing properties, as they did with the nearest property not in the conservation area. The way the Council dealt with the application in its proposed location did not cause significant injustice to Mr X as a conservation area resident.
11. Mr X says at the time of this application, the Council was investigating unapproved developments on the site. He says a member of Council planning staff told him in a telephone call that this was the reason for the original condition in the planning notice, preventing the development commencing within three years of the grant of permission.
12. The Council’s decision to change the condition to the one it says its officers intended has no significant impact on Mr X, and causes him no level of injustice which would justify our further involvement. I recognise Mr X considers the Council should have kept the original condition or followed a different process to change the condition’s wording. I realise he may be annoyed by the Council’s actions here. But that annoyance is not sufficient injustice to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matter Mr X complains about does not cause him a significant personal injustice which warrants an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman