Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s 2019 planning process and decision, its responses to their concerns about the property as built, or officers’ communications. The complaints about the 2019 process and decision are late and there is no good reason to investigate them now. Any changes to the property as built, not in line with the plans, do not cause Mr and Mrs X a significant personal injustice warranting investigation. We do not investigate complaints about Council correspondence where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr and Mrs X want from their complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X share a rear boundary with a site for a new residential development. They complain the Council has:
1. not followed the proper planning process when granting permission for the development in 2019;
2. not followed the rules and guidelines in its District Plan or the North Yorkshire Planning Strategy;
3. failed to do an environmental impact assessment;
4. failed to consider the application at the planning committee;
5. been unduly influenced to grant the permission by its relationship with the development’s owner;
6. failed to check the separation distance between the east elevation of the new house and the boundary with their property;
7. ignored their various emails and requests for discussion of the development.
2. Mr and Mrs X say the development has destroyed their visual amenity, completely changed their residential environment and is an unacceptable blot on the landscape. They want the Council to reverse the planning decision, change the building to a single storey one, or remove it completely.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr and Mrs X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We expect people to raise complaints with us within 12 months of them becoming aware of the matter complained of, otherwise the complaint is late. We may decide to investigate a late complaint, but we must consider there to be a good reason to do so.
8. Most of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, issues a) to e) in paragraph one above, are about the Council’s planning process and decision from 2019. Mr and Mrs X initially objected to the application. They met with the development’s owner, a long-time neighbour, and agreed some amendments between them. Mr and Mrs X withdrew their earlier objections and wrote to the Council to support the development. The Council granted the permission later in 2019. Mr and Mrs X have complained to us about the Council’s planning decision and process in September 2022. Mr and Mrs X would have known about the planning process and the outcome in 2019. This means issues a) to e) are late.
9. I have considered whether there is good reason for us to investigate those late complaints. Mr and Mrs X knew the key aspects of the development as permitted in 2019, including its intended location, its design, its use of non-standard material, its size and scale. If Mr and Mrs X believed the Council’s 2019 decision was flawed in the ways they now claim, irrespective of their discussions with the owner, they could have complained at the time. There are no good reasons for us to investigate these late issues now.
10. Now the development is being built, I understand Mr and Mrs X consider the owner has not complied with the agreement they made. This included moving the new house two metres further north, to be slightly less within their view from their property, and additional landscape planting. This has triggered their complaint.
11. The Council’s involvement in the planning permission process ended once it gave permission. It is then for the developer to build to the permitted plans. If Mr and Mrs X believe the developer has not built the property in line with the approved plans, they should report this to the Council as a planning enforcement matter. It appears they may have done this because they have raised issues about the location of the house, including the separation distance from the elevation facing them and the shared land boundary (issue f) in paragraph one). They have also referred to additional windows and doors added to the house’s facing elevation in correspondence with the Council.
12. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. Even if there has been fault by the Council in its planning enforcement process, there is no significant impact on Mr and Mrs X’s property’s amenity caused by the location of the new house in the development plot, or from additional windows and doors. I say this because the new property is about 40 metres from the rear elevation of Mr and Mrs X’s house. There is no overlooking or loss of privacy caused by its position, or by new windows and doors. At that separation distance, a difference of two metres in the siting of the building in any direction would have no significant impact on Mr and Mrs X’s property amenity. There is insufficient injustice to Mr and Mrs X caused by the development as built to warrant us investigating.
13. I recognise Mr and Mrs X think the development is an ugly blot on the landscape. The overall design and materials to be used on the building were in the plans permitted in 2019, which Mr and Mrs X eventually supported. Even if they had objected about the development spoiling their view in 2019, the Council could not have refused the permission on that basis. There is no right within planning law for an existing resident to retain a particular view, or any right for them to only see things from their property which they like.
14. Mr and Mrs X say the Council ignored some of their correspondence about the development, asking to discuss matters. It is unfortunate if officers did not provide the contacts Mr and Mrs X sought. But we do not investigate complaints about councils’ correspondence, or their internal complaint processes, in isolation where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate issue g) from their complaint.
15. Mr and Mrs X want the Council to reverse the planning decision, change the new building to a single storey, or get it completely removed. We cannot order councils to revoke or amend planning permissions which have already been granted. Nor can we order councils or other parties involved to demolish properties they have built. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr and Mrs X want here is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because:
• the complaints about the Council’s 2019 planning process and decision are late and there are no good reasons to investigate them now; and
• any changes to the property as built do not cause them a significant enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not investigate complaints about Council correspondence where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr and Mrs X want from their complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman