Summary: We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to make their neighbour install obscure glazing to the front of his property. Planning permission for the glazing was granted by the Planning Inspector. The law says we cannot investigate actions of the Planning Inspector. They also complain the Council refuses to act against their neighbours’ intrusive lighting. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs X say the Council refuses to:
• make their neighbour install obscure glazing to his home; or
• act against his lighting which they say is a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. This includes decisions made by the Planning Inspector.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr & Mrs X complain the Council has refused to make their neighbour install obscure glazing to his window which is opposite their home.
8. The Planning Inspector granted permission for changes to their neighbour’s property including a new ridge in the front of the property with glazing and a Juliet balcony. The permission does not require obscure glazing; therefore they cannot require the neighbour to make the changes that Mr & Mrs X want.
9. Mr & Mrs X also complain the Council refuses to act on their reports of nuisance caused by the neighbours’ external lighting.
10. The Council confirms it has made multiple visits to view the neighbour’s property. This includes visits to Mr & Mrs X’s home and out of hours visits to the site.
11. Officers considered the light from a single external light on the apex of the neighbour’s roof was causing a statutory nuisance. It served an Abatement Notice requiring the neighbour to prevent the nuisance. It has since visited the site and confirms this light is no longer causing a nuisance.
12. Mr & Mrs X say the remaining external lights on the neighbour’s property are causing a nuisance. They say the Council should consider the fact they are elderly with disabilities and this exacerbates the impact of the lights on them.
13. However, the law says the council should not take into account any specific attributes of the person complaining about the nuisance. Statutory nuisance must be considered in the context of an average person, in a reasonable state of good health and having a normal pattern of everyday activity. Statutory nuisance cannot be used to make people do more than might reasonably be expected of them because someone else may be more sensitive.
14. The Council has visited Mr & Mrs X’s home and viewed the neighbour’s property many times. Officers are satisfied the remaining lights are not causing a statutory nuisance.
15. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X’s complaint because:
• We cannot consider complaints about the Planning Inspectors’ decision to allow their neighbour to install clear glazing to the front of his home.
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered their reports of light nuisance and its decision that other than the apex light, which is the subject of an Abatement Notice, the neighbours’ external light is not causing a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman