Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Councils decision to grant planning permission or its decision her neighbour has not breached planning control. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault which would have affected the planning decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council’s decisions to grant her neighbour’s planning permission. And its decision her neighbour has not breached planning control. She says the Council failed to consider the negative impact the development will have on her privacy.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X bought her home more than 3 years ago. She received notice from the Council about her neighbour’s application for planning a loft room. She says she did not question the artists impressions of the proposals decided not to object.
6. The Council says its planning officer visited the application site although they did not place notes on the planning file. The officer noted the sides of the dormer window face Miss X’s property rather than the windows. Although the windows given an indirect view into Miss X’s property. She also noted good vegetative screening between the properties.
7. The Officer recommended the application for approval. The Council agreed and granted permission in 2016.
8. In 2020 Miss X became aware the neighbour had started to build the loft room. She complained to the Council saying the planning application expired after 3 years and therefore the development is unauthorised.
9. The Council opened an enforcement investigation. Because of the restrictions due to COVID-19, officers could not visit the site. However, they obtained evidence from the applicant who provided date-stamped photographs confirming internal work began before the permission expired. Therefore, the permission is extant with no breach of planning control.
10. Miss X doubts a site visit took place before planning permission was granted. The Council confirms an officer did visit the property in 2016, although unfortunately no contemporaneous notes are available. The Council has advised site visit notes are now kept on case files.
11. The Planning officer’s report while brief, shows Miss X’s amenity was considered. As does the Officer’s recollections on the placement of the dormer window and the mature vegetation between the properties.
12. Miss X also believes planning permission expired before the neighbour started work so the development is unauthorised. However, the Council has obtained date-stamped evidence to show work took place inside the neighbour’s home before the end date and it is satisfied there is no breach of planning control.
13. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for fault in the decision-making process. If we find it, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant.
14. Before it made its decision, the Council took account of the application plans, policy it considered relevant, and other material considerations, including information from the site visit.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the process the Council followed which affected its decision making in this case.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman