Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve planning application for a site behind the complainant’s home, or its decision not to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has allowed excessive development, leading to major loss of privacy at his property. He also says it has allowed changes to the original application by allowing land levels to be altered and fence heights changed without consulting neighbours.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a planning application to build four houses on land behind Mr X’s home. The case officer’s report shows the Council considered the separation distance of 25 metres between habitable windows of the existing and new properties. It was satisfied the siting and orientation of the new dwellings will ensure that the development has no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, domination or overshadowing. The report also details the relevant national and local planning policy and explains the reasons for the officer’s recommendation for approving the application.
6. The Council agreed with the planning officer’s recommendation and approved the application.
7. The Council then received an application to vary the conditions of the existing planning permission. Mr X objected to the application on the grounds of loss of privacy and overshadowing. The planning officer’s report on the new application again details the relevant policies, a summary of the objections and the reasons for the officer’s recommendation. Again, the Council agreed with the planning officer and approved the new application. I understand Mr X believes the Council should not have accepted the application to alter the original planning application. However, the developer is allowed to make such applications.
8. 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. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which justifies an investigation in the way the Council decided to approve the planning applications.
9. Mr X also complains the Council failed to properly investigate his report that the developer has breached planning control by erecting a fence that is too high. The Council has advised there is a technical breach because the fence is 100mm higher than permitted. It considers it is not expedient to take enforcement action against this breach. However, it has agreed to visit Mr X’s home to view the impact of the fence from his property.
10. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of effective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately.
11. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide it should not take formal action, and councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement in the way the Council considered the planning applications or Mr X’s report of a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman