Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for extensions to his neighbour’s property, nor its decisions on planning enforcement reports he made about the development. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its planning permission and enforcement decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a house whose owner applied for and received planning permission for works to the rear of the property. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to properly assess the overlooking and privacy loss impacts on his property when deciding to grant the planning permission for his neighbour’s development;
2. failed to follow due process during the planning permission process;
3. has failed to enforce against planning breaches at his neighbour’s property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has complained about two planning functions of the Council: the planning decision to grant permission to the neighbour’s development, and its planning enforcement responses to his reports of breaches of the permission.
6. We are not appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Mr X’s neighbour submitted their planning application about two years ago. As part of their decision-making process, officers assessed the impacts of the application on Mr X’s property’s amenity. They recognised there would be some impacts on privacy caused by the development as proposed or built. However, they determined the level of overlooking and loss of privacy caused to Mr X’s property was not sufficiently significant to warrant a refusal of the permission.
8. The Council took account of Mr X’s objections to the development, including his concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy, when considering the application and producing its planning report. They considered relevant information and applied relevant policies when making their decision to grant the permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process here to justify us investigating.
9. We note Mr X sought additional documents from the Council showing how it reached its planning decision, other than its officers’ report. He considers the absence of such documents may indicate the Council has not followed due process. But where a decision is made under delegated planning officer powers, the report is the document in which councils set out the assessments relevant to the planning outcome reached. It was not fault for the Council to present and rely on this report here as its planning decision, and no other document.
10. Mr X has raised planning enforcement issues with the Council, about the neighbouring development, since early 2024. They relate to the potential use of a flat-roofed part of the development as external space by his neighbour. The permission included two conditions, A and B, which sought to prevent that use.
11. Mr X reported that the neighbour had not fitted a railing or Juliet balcony under condition A. This condition sought to deter the use of a door as access on to the flat roof. It appears the fitment was removed during work to the extension’s external walls. It is not clear if it was replaced once that work ended. The Council says that even if the railing or Juliet balcony was not replaced, condition B expressly prohibits use of the flat roof as a balcony space. Officers told Mr X that if there is no evidence of the roof being used as a balcony, it would not be expedient to enforce against condition A. Officers advised Mr X that if he witnesses the roof being used as a balcony, he should report it to them as this could breach condition B. They said they would consider his reports and decide what action to take. Mr X does not say he has witnessed and reported the neighbour using the roof as a balcony.
12. Enforcement is a discretionary power held by local planning authorities. It is for those authorities’ officers to make their decisions on whether to use their powers. National government advises local authorities to use enforcement as a last resort and only where there is significant harm cause by a planning breach. Officers gathered and assessed the relevant information to inform their decision not to enforce here. They took the view that it was not expedient to pursue the railing issue as a planning breach on the evidence before them and explained the reasons in their responses. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement process to warrant investigation here.
13. The second enforcement issue Mr X raised with the Council was the neighbour’s addition of a roof window. The Council gathered details of the installation. Many such roof windows do not require planning permission and are allowed under ‘permitted development’ rights, a set of criteria planning authorities apply to developments. If a development complies with the criteria as set out by national government at the time of its completion, it would be deemed permitted development. The Council considered the information it received about the roof window and the relevant permitted development criteria. Officers determined the window complied as permitted development and closed its enforcement file.
14. Officers gathered and assessed the relevant information to make their decision that the roof window was permitted development, did not require planning permission and so did not amount to a planning breach. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here regarding the roof window to justify an investigation.
15. We recognise Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision to grant the planning permission and with its later enforcement decisions. But as explained above, we cannot go behind a decision and replace it with our or someone else’s opinion if the council has followed a proper decision-making process. It is not fault for a council to properly make decisions with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because There is not enough evidence of Council fault either in its planning permission or enforcement decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman