Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process leading to its decision to grant permission for a new house near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process which would have affected the planning outcome to warrant us investigating. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s responses to her concerns and complaints because we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives near a piece of land whose owner was granted planning permission by the Council for a new house in autumn 2019. She complains the Council:
1. failed to consider her privacy when granting permission to the development;
2. made administrative errors during the planning process which officers ‘ignored, manipulated and delayed’ to get the planning permission through;
3. failed to properly reply to her correspondence during the matter.
2. Mrs X says her house and garden are totally overlooked by the new development so she does not want to go into her garden anymore and keeps curtains closed in the house. She says the development has caused a significant loss of value to her property and she has had the cost of planting new trees to try to stop some of the overlooking. Mrs X says dealing with the Council has caused her stress. She is seeking financial compensation.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says the Council did not take account of the impact of the development on her privacy. The planning officer’s report shows the Council summarised all objections, including the concerns raised about overlooking of existing properties in Mrs X’s road. The report goes on to consider those concerns in the relevant planning policy context at the time. Officers determined the windows closest to Mrs X serve non-habitable spaces such as a stairwell and a bathroom, with the latter window conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut. A further window is a secondary window for a bedroom. The Council says the separation distances between these windows and those in Mrs X’s house are over 25 metres, which made it compliant with the Council’s planning policy at the time, a policy now in the Local Plan. Officers concluded there were no planning grounds to refuse the application on the basis of overlooking caused to Mrs X’s property because of the separation distances and the kinds of spaces served by the windows.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault here in the way the Council assessed overlooking to Mrs X’s property by the development to justify us investigating. Officers considered relevant planning information in line with their policy to reach their decision. I realise Mrs X disagrees with their decision. But it is not fault for a Council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. Mrs X says the Council made administrative errors during the planning process which she believes affected the planning outcome. The Council accepts one of the applicant’s plans inaccurately represented Mrs X’s garage block. As a non‑habitable building, a garage block would not be part of a council’s consideration of overlooking or other kinds of residential planning harm. Officers also accept the planning report incorrectly referred to a tree in Mrs X’s garden as a conifer when it is an oak. Mrs X’s tree is not protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and officers determined it was far enough away to not be affected by the development works. While unfortunate, there is not enough evidence these issues would have had any bearing on the Council’s planning decision here. They are not sufficient evidence of fault in the planning process for us to investigate.
9. Mrs X says the Council failed to reply to her correspondence. The planning process involves a consultation period inviting objections or expressions of support for applications. But it is not a dialogue process between officers and the public. There is no routine requirement for officers to correspond with those who comment on an application; they are only required to take account of their views when making their planning decision. Mrs X may also have been dissatisfied with the Council’s responses after the end of the planning process. It is unfortunate if that was the case, but Mrs X could have made a complaint through the Council’s formal complaint process sooner after the planning decision, rather than first pursuing further correspondence with officers.
10. In any event, we will not investigate the way a council has responded to concerns or complaints in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not pursue this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process which could have affected the outcome to warrant us investigating;
• we will not investigate complaints about councils’ responses to concerns and complaints where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman