Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a nearby house development. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning notification and decision-making processes to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the key outcome Miss X seeks from her complaint, and there would be no benefit or different outcome to the matter to be achieved by a site visit.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives near a residential property which received planning permission. She complains the Council:
1. failed to notify her of the planning application;
2. failed to properly consider the impact of two of the development’s roof windows on her property.
2. Miss X says the notification issue meant she lost the opportunity to object to the application. She says the development has a massive impact on her privacy in, due to overlooking from the roof windows. Miss X says the matter causes her and her family upset and stress on a daily basis, and has had massive negative effect on their quality of life and enjoyment of their home. She wants the planning applicant to install obscure glazing in the roof windows, and for the Council to visit her property to see the development’s impact.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We cannot question whether an organisation’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

5. I considered information from Miss X, online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says the Council did not notify her of the planning application for the property. The Council says it posted notification letters to a list of nearby properties, including Miss X’s address. Some of the addresses received their notifications, which indicates the Council sent letters. It is unfortunate Miss X did not receive her letter, but delivery of post is the responsibility of the postal service. We cannot now determine what happened to Miss X’s notification. I recognise Miss X lost the opportunity to comment on the application, but there is not enough evidence for us to say this was due to Council fault. It is not Council fault if the postal service did not deliver the letter.
7. Where councils receive no objections to an application, they are still required to consider the impact of any new development on the amenity of existing nearby properties. Miss X’s concern about the development is the inclusion of two windows in the new sloping roof facing her property. She says the windows are at a lower level than her house and so give views to the residents of the developed property into her home, causing loss of privacy.
8. The Council considered the development’s location, size, scale and design and took the view that it would not result in any more overlooking than was currently experienced. In response to the complaint, officers stated the separation distance between Miss X’s house and the roof windows is about 24 metres. The Council’s guideline distance for windows in directly facing elevations is 21 metres. Officers considered the separation of 24 metres between Miss X’s windows and the roof windows to be acceptable. They also noted the roof windows serve a bedroom, which in the planning system is described as a non‑habitable room. This means it is a room which has less daily use than an area such as a living room. The room’s normal use as a bedroom reduces the prospect of significant overlooking from its windows. Along with the separation distance, officers determined the development would not cause such planning harm to justify them refusing the permission.
9. We cannot go behind a council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in the process which, but for that fault, officers would have made a different decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of the planning application here to warrant investigation. Officers took account of the relevant information in the planning process to make their decision. I recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s view. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. The key outcome Miss X wants from her complaint is for the windows to be removed, or at least for them to be glazed using opaque glass. We cannot get this outcome for Miss X. The Council has granted planning permission for the roof windows, and for them to be clear-glazed. Officers cannot amend that permission retrospectively by demanding the owner now takes them out or uses obscure glazing. For us to achieve this outcome from Miss X’s complaint, we would have to order the Council to revoke the current planning permission as granted, so it could then amend or remove the windows in a future permission. We cannot order a council to take such action, which is a further reason why we will not investigate.
11. Miss X also wants the Council to visit her property to see the impact of the development. But as the planning permission has been granted, there would be no benefit to Miss X of such a visit. Further investigation by way of a site visit would not now lead to a different planning outcome here.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence it was fault by the Council which led to Miss X not receiving her written planning application notification justify an investigation;
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning decision process to warrant us investigating;
• we cannot achieve the key planning outcome Miss X sought from her complaint;
• there would be no benefit or different outcome to the matter to be achieved from a site visit.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman