Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application or its handling of alleged breaches of planning control. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and part of the complaint is late.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council granted planning permission which allowed a first-floor clear-glass side window overlooking her patio and garden without requiring obscure glazing. She says this has caused a serious loss of privacy and will require costly measures to restore screening. She believes the Council failed to properly assess the impact on her amenity and should review the built position, require opaque glass, and assist with mitigation costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X was aware of the planning application from May 2024, when site notices and advertisements were displayed. I therefore consider the parts of the complaint relating to the Planning Officer’s report and the decision to grant planning permission to be late. The Ombudsman can exercise discretion to consider late complaints if there is good reason to do so. I have not asked whether there is a good reason, because we are not an appeal body and cannot overturn the decision the Council has made to grant planning permission. We have no remit to reconsider whether a planning decision was right or wrong. Instead, we look at whether the Council followed the correct processes when making its decision. If it did, we cannot question the merits of that decision.
7. In this case, the Planning Officer’s report shows they considered the proposal’s impact, including overlooking and loss of privacy. The Officer also required changes to mitigate these impacts. We understand that Mrs X disagrees with this view, but planning decisions rely on professional judgement. Without evidence of a procedural error, the law does not allow us to challenge that judgement.
8. Mrs X’s subsequent complaints about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement complaints are still in time for us to consider.
9. I have found the Council investigated the alleged breaches through site visits and enforcement checks before deciding that no further action was necessary. We cannot say this decision was wrong, ask the Council to reconsider, require any changes, or compensate Mrs X for costs or loss of amenity.
10. If Mrs X believes the Council’s decision was legally flawed, she may wish to seek legal advice about challenging it by judicial review in the High Court. The Court can quash the planning permission and order the Council to reconsider, whereas we cannot require changes to the development now permission has been granted.
11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application or its handling of alleged breaches of planning control. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and part of the complaint is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman