Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission for a new house with a clear‑glazed landing window near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision, or significant personal injustice caused to Ms X, to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome she seeks from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X’s property backs on to a new residential development. She complains the Council has granted planning permission for the new property closest to hers, house A, which includes a clear-glazed landing window about 13 metres away.
2. Ms X says the window causes loss of privacy to her bedroom and garden, and gives her views into house A. She wants the Council to require the window to be obscure glazed.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Ms X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We may only go behind a council’s decision where there has been fault in its decision-making process which, but for that fault, a different outcome would have been reached. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions.
7. In making its planning decision to grant permission for the residential development including house A, the Council considered the impacts on existing properties within the officer report. The planning application documents included the proposed location of house A. Officers noted it was between 13 and 35 metres away from a group of existing houses, including Ms X’s which was the closest one. The application also gave details of house A’s design, including the window in the wall facing Ms X’s house. Officers took the view that the impact of the window, taking account of the separation distance involved and that it served the landing and stairs, was acceptable. They did not consider the presence of the clear‑glazed landing and stairs window, or any other aspect of house A or the wider development, caused such planning harm to neighbour amenities to warrant a refusal.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process here to justify us investigating. I recognise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it was a decision officers were entitled to make, and it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there were fault by the Council here, the planning outcome does not cause Ms X such a significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. National planning policy and guidance defines different residential rooms as ‘habitable’, including living rooms and dining rooms, and ‘non-habitable’, such as bathrooms, stairways, hallways and landings. Residents do not spend long periods of time in non‑habitable rooms and will briefly pass stairs and landing windows on the way to other rooms. Any impact on privacy or overlooking between houses from these kinds of windows is much diminished because of the types of room they serve and how those rooms are used.
10. Ms X also says the house A window will allow its residents to see her garden. But Ms X has existing neighbours whose upper-level bedroom windows provide views of her garden. Any additional overlooking from a window serving the non‑habitable room in house A is not sufficient to amount to a significant personal injustice.
11. The level of impact on Ms X’s property’s amenity by the presence of the clear‑glazed stairs and landing window is not sufficient to justify an investigation.
12. Ms X says the residents in house A would benefit from their stairs and landing window being obscure glazed, as she can see from her house into theirs. Ms X’s overlooking of those neighbours would not be an injustice to her. If house A’s owners decide they do not want to be seen by anyone through the window, they could choose to make it opaque. But that would be their decision to make about their own property, and would not involve the Council.
13. Ms X wants the landing and stairs window to be obscure glazed. The planning permission was granted without such a requirement. To now impose it would involve the Council revoking the planning permission as it was granted. We cannot order councils to revoke permissions, so an investigation could not achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:

• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making to warrant an investigation; and
• even if there were fault, there is not sufficient personal injustice caused to her by the planning outcome to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman