Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault affecting its decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr x, complains the Council granted planning permission for development which impacts on his privacy. He is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of an enforcement case relating to the same development.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s response and the planning application documents. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council granted planning permission for development to the rear of Mr X’s property in 2017. Mr X was aware of the application and objected to it as he was concerned it would affect his privacy, but the Council considered the impact of the development and decided it was acceptable. The Council set several conditions for the planning permission including one requiring obscure-glazed screening as “shown on the approved drawings”.
7. The development was completed in 2019 and Mr X contacted the Council to report the condition had not been complied with. He believes obscure-glazed screening should be placed across the entire rear elevation of the development to protect his privacy.
8. The Council investigated the matter but found no basis for enforcement action or to require the screening Mr X wants. This is because the development complied with the approved plans.
9. The Council now accepts there was no obscure-glazed screening shown in the plans but there was a small element of screening to the side of the development. It suggests the condition was referring to this screening but partially upheld Mr X’s complaint as it accepted the wording of the condition was not sufficiently precise. However, it confirmed with evidence that it had considered the impact of the development on neighbour privacy when reaching its decision to grant planning permission and that the decision was correct.

The planning application

10. The Council granted planning permission for the development in 2017 and Mr X did not bring his complaint to us until September 2020. Any complaint about the Council’s decision is therefore late. The approved plans do not show any obscure-glazed screening to the rear of the development and the planning officer’s report was clear the impact on properties facing this elevation was acceptable without any further additions. Had Mr X felt the Council had not properly considered the issue it would have been reasonable for him to complain at the time.
11. But even if Mr X had raised this issue within 12 months of the Council’s decision it is unlikely we would have investigated it. This is because the planning officer clearly set out the reasons they considered the development acceptable and there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
12. If there is any fault in this matter it concerns the wording of the condition and this does not affect Mr X. There is no suggestion the Council considered an obscure-glazed screen necessary to protect his privacy so it could not have required this by condition.

The enforcement case

13. The Council has clearly explained the reasons it cannot take enforcement action in this case and it is not for us to say it should. The planning permission does not require the developer to install an obscure-glazed screen across the rear of the development so the Council has no basis for formal enforcement action requiring it to do so. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach to this issue and it does not therefore warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s claimed injustice stems from the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development and any complaint about this decision is late. It is also unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman