Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to restrict his neighbour’s ‘permitted development’ rights. This is because Mr X’s injustice is not the result of any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to restrict his neighbour’s right to install new windows at the rear of their property when granting planning permission for the dwelling more than five years ago. His neighbour has now installed a new window and Mr X says this overlooks his home and garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s response and the relevant planning application details and documents. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X bought his house in 2017. He was aware the Council had granted planning permission for development on land next to the property when he bought it but complains it did not restrict ‘permitted development’ rights for the installation of new windows on the rear elevation.
5. The owner/occupant recently applied to the Council to confirm they could install a new window as ‘permitted development’ (i.e. without the need for planning permission) and the Council confirmed they could. Mr X complained to the Council and says the planning officer told him “with the benefit of hindsight maybe” it should have restricted permitted development rights under the original planning permission. But the Council says it was not reasonably foreseeable at the time that such a condition was required; it therefore considered it may have failed the requirement for a condition to be ‘necessary’.
6. Mr X believes the Council failed to properly consider the issue but we cannot attribute his claimed injustice to any fault by the Council. The Council granted planning permission for the development before Mr X purchased his property and its decision did not therefore affect him at the time. It only affects him now as a result of his decision to purchase the property.
7. We would expect any prudent purchaser to make themselves aware of any grants of planning permission before deciding whether to proceed with their purchase. Mr X was aware of the planning permission when he bought his property and could/should have known there was no condition restricting the insertion of new windows in the rear elevation at the time. Had he felt the risk that such development may proceed without the need for planning permission was too great he may have decided not to continue. That he did was his decision and this is the cause of the injustice he now claims.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s claimed injustice is not the result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman