Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has used “every excuse” to favour his neighbour’s removal of a side window and its replacement with a French door and balustrade, causing him anxiety and stress.
2. He also complains the Council has accepted an illegal application as the wrong ownership certificate was submitted with the planning application.

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 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 provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X told the Council his neighbour had replaced a first-floor side window with French doors and a balcony. Initially, the Council told Mr X the new doors were permitted development. However, following intervention by his ward councillor, the Council agreed the new arrangement needed planning permission.
7. The Council invited the neighbour to apply for retrospective planning permission.
8. The neighbour submitted a planning application for French doors and steel balustrade to replace an existing first floor window. Mr X objected on ground of loss of privacy. He said the design will allow the resident to “lean out” over the balustrade and look into his rear garden and habitable rooms, contrary to the Council’s local plan.
9. A planning officer obtained internal and external photographs of the site. They prepared a report on the scheme. This includes relevant local policy and a summary of Mr X’s objections. The report shows the officer considered the new French doors and balustrade replaces a previous window, the location of the French doors in relation to Mr X’s home and the screening afforded by existing vegetation. They concluded the doors and balustrade would not cause a significant increase in the loss of privacy to Mr X’s home. A senior officer agreed and granted planning permission under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
10. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision. He also stated the neighbour had submitted the wrong ownership on the planning application form. He says the registered owner was not the person who signed the ownership certificate.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
12. Councils will not refuse planning permission for a development just because it will impact on the privacy of a neighbouring property. The Council must consider whether impact caused will be unacceptable.
13. The report includes a summary of Mr X’s objections to the proposal. The Officer notes the scheme replaces a previous window. They consider there will not be a significant increase in loss of privacy to Mr X’s home. I note the report refers to the wrong house number, but it is clear the officer is referring to Mr X’s property.
14. Mr X also complains the planning application is illegal because the registered property owner is not the person who signed the ownership certificate on the planning application form.
15. For a planning application to be valid the applicant must submit a certificate regarding the ownership of the land. There are different types of certificates depending on the circumstances. It is the applicant’s responsibility to submit the correct certificate and it is not for the Council to verify the registered owner has signed the ownership certificate. The Council’s role is to decide if an application is acceptable in planning terms.
16. I am satisfied that even if Mr X had raised his concerns about the ownership certificate sooner, it is unlikely the Council’s decision to grant planning permission would be different.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve his neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman