Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a house which he says will overlook his home and garden. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a house to be built to the rear of his property. Mr B says the development will result in harmful overlooking to his property, particularly the part of his garden closest to his house which has always been private. Mr B considers the Council has relied on planning policy but did not give proper consideration to local circumstances. Mr B would like the Council to revoke the grant of planning permission so a condition can be included to ensure windows are obscure glazed and fixed shut.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr B including the Council’s case report for the planning application he complains about. I have also considered planning records available on the Council website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered Mr B’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council wrote a case report setting out its consideration of the proposal. The Council considered Mr B’s objection about overlooking but decided the proposal was acceptable.
8. The Council explained that the distance between the development and Mr B’s property is in line with the Council’s policy on separation distances. The Council said appropriate boundary treatment could prevent overlooking from ground floor windows. The Council also said only one of the proposed windows at first floor level will serve a habitable room – the other two windows serve en-suite bathrooms. In addition, the Council said that in suburban locations a level of mutual overlooking is to be expected. So, the Council said the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy to the rear garden of Mr B’s property to a degree that would be harmful to his living conditions.
9. Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision, but the information does not suggest there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision. Unless there is evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision, we cannot say the Council’s assessment was right or wrong.
10. The Council clearly explained its assessment of overlooking. The Council took relevant factors into account, including the distance between the properties, when making its assessment.
11. Mr B considers the Council has relied on planning policy and did not give proper consideration to local circumstances. But, the information indicates the Council was fully aware of the layout of the properties and potential impact on Mr B’s property, particularly his garden. The Council noted in the case report with reference to Mr B’s property that the proposed dwelling would change the existing relationship. But, the Council fully explained why it considered the proposal was acceptable.
12. Mr B is also concerned that the occupier of the building may change the use of the first floor rooms so they become habitable rooms. Mr B says the Council should have imposed a planning condition either preventing the en-suite bathrooms being converted into habitable rooms, or requiring the windows on the elevation facing his property to be obscure glazed. Mr B says the Council’s approach to this application is inconsistent with its approach to other applications.
13. The Council must assess each planning application on its merits. In response to Mr B’s complaint the Council explained why it did not impose the conditions Mr B seeks. The Council said the en-suite bathroom windows are small and would not be the primary windows to the room even if the layout were to be changed. The Council added that it believes the amenity impact would still be acceptable even if the layout was changed. The Council also said it was satisfied the proposal met the Council’s planning policies and standards, so obscure glazing was not needed to make the proposal acceptable.
14. I am satisfied the Council has explained the reasons for its decision not to impose such conditions. So, an investigation by the Ombudsman is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman