Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process, granting permission for a development with a change of cladding and roof materials near her property, not telling the Town Council of the materials change, and one of its complaint responses. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s planning process and decision, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core matter which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives near a property whose owner applied for and received planning permission for various development works. Just before granting the permission, the Council agreed a change to the building’s roofing and cladding to allow use of a different material. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. failed to follow the proper process and policies when allowing the change in cladding and roof materials;
2. failed to tell the Town Council about the change to the materials;
3. in a reply to her complaint, incorrectly stated it could not revoke or alter its planning decisions.
2. Mrs X says she feels misled by the Council and has lost faith in the fairness and correctness of its planning processes. She says she feels powerless in planning matters because the Council can be flexible in applying its policies and does not have to inform her about all changes to applications.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 original development plans did not include details of all exterior materials. Prior to issuing the decision, the developer sent the Council revised plans which specified the materials for the cladding and the roof. The officer considered the materials to be acceptable in planning terms for the location of the property and to be a non-material change to the application. They took the view that the variety of designs and materials used in other properties in the area meant the cladding and roof material sought by the developer should not be grounds for refusing the application. Mrs X disagreed and complained to the Council about various aspects of the planning process.
6. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s planning process, we will not investigate. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the planning outcome and the other matters here to warrant us investigating. The materials used on the development property do not have a significant impact on Mrs X’s own property’s amenity. We recognise Mrs X has views of the development from parts of her property and she does not like the sight of the materials used within the street scene. But there is no right afforded by the planning process to residents to have an unchanging view, or to only see buildings or materials they personally like from their house or garden. It is not a sufficient significant personal injustice for Mrs X to be able to see the development and its materials from her property. Mrs X says she has a sense of powerlessness and has lost faith in the Council’s planning process. This is unfortunate but they are insufficient significant personal injustices to warrant us investigating.
7. In her complaint to us, Mrs X alleges the Council failed to inform the Town Council of the change to the materials. This is not a specific issue which appears in the complaint correspondence we have seen between her and the District Council, but we have considered it as part of its planning process. The Town Council was a consultee only on the application, not the planning decision-maker. That was the District Council, as the local planning authority. The District Council was required to take account of all consultee replies. But even if the Town Council did not receive the details of the material change and if it had would have opposed the grant of permission, the District Council would not have been bound to comply with the Town Council’s view. We cannot now say the District Council’s planning decision would have been different here. As the planning decision‑maker, it was the District Council’s role to determine the application. Ultimately, as explained above, even if there was fault in this aspect of the planning process, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the development’s planning outcome to warrant an investigation.
8. In its complaint response, the Council told Mrs X it could not ‘retract’ a planning decision or require an applicant to make changes to a development with planning permission. Mrs X is correct to say local planning authorities have revocation powers granted by section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so the Council’s complaint response on this point was inaccurate. However, we do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave 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 this part of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• even if there has been Council fault, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core matter which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman