Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not assessing the visual impact of a development on her property, changing the colour of tall structures on the site after granting consent, and not being clear on what will happen with the development site in future. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the outcome of the Council’s planning fault to warrant us investigating. There is no worthwhile outcome investigation could achieve for her not having her opinions properly considered in the planning process and being let down by officers. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s response to her concerns about the site’s future to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. The Council granted planning permission for an industrial site, including 15 metre‑tall structures, visible from Mrs X’s property. She complains the Council:
1. failed to assess the visual impact of the development from her property;
2. after granting consent for the tall structures to be painted blue to help them blend in, a planning officer agreed with them being white;
3. has not been clear on what will happen with the development in future.
2. Mrs X says she has not had her opinions properly represented and considered as part of the application. She says she has been let down by officers she trusted. Mrs X wants the Council to explore what mitigation measures it could now put in and explain how long the development will remain on the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has accepted the planning outcome of the colour of the tall structures on the development site is a result of its fault. Officers accept the visual impact of the development from Mrs X’s property was not properly considered when compared to the impacts from other locations, and that the decision for the main structures to be permitted to be white was wrong.
6. Where there is fault, whether admitted or otherwise, our remit requires us to consider the injustice that fault then directly causes to the complainant.
7. We understand Mrs X’s claimed injustice is not having her opinions properly considered in the planning process, and being let down by officers. There is no other process available to the Council we could recommend it to use which would now be able to rectify these issues. The Council has apologised for its errors in how it dealt with Mrs X’s views and concerns in its planning process. Investigating would not achieve any further worthwhile outcome for Mrs X for these injustices, so we will not do so.
8. The key injustice in planning cases involving council fault is the harms of the planning outcome on the complainant’s property. Mrs X’s call for mitigation measures to reduce the views of the development indicates this is one of her concerns. But she lives about 400 metres from the location of the tall structures on the development site. The outcome caused by the Council’s planning fault is that she has distant views of the tall white structures on the development, instead of having the same views of the structures in blue. We recognise the structures’ whiteness makes them more noticeable in the landscape. But given the separation distance, the additional impact on Mrs X’s property from the development as built compared to the impact from how it was originally intended to look, does not amount to a sufficiently significant injustice to warrant us investigating.
9. Mrs X says the Council has not been clear on how long the site can operate and what will happen with it in future. The planning permissions set an expiry date for the current development and its uses. But that does not mean the development’s structures will not remain. A new and valid planning application may be submitted and approved by the Council for current structures to stay or move to another part of the site. Councils are required to consider all valid applications submitted to them. Officers cannot control which applications they receive, nor dictate their contents. There are too many variables involved for planning authorities to accurately forecast the fate of any planning site. These variables include the future applications the authorities are required to determine, changes to local and national planning policies, and changes to planning legislation and regulations. The Council has given its final response on the issue to Mrs X based on the current planning situation. We understand this may not give Mrs X the level of certainty she would like. But there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council being unable to predict what will happen to the development in future to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to her by the Council’s planning fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is no further worthwhile outcome we could achieve for her claimed injustice of not having her opinions properly considered in the planning process and being let down by officers to justify an investigation; and
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s response to her concerns about the site’s future to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman