Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a partly clear-glazed and opening side window at a property next to the complainant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner and, in any case, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s side window was based on a misunderstanding of permitted development rights. Mr X says the neighbour’s window overlooks his bedroom windows, resulting in a loss of privacy and a violation of his Human Rights.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The Ombudsman can investigate 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))
4. But we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. And 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. If there is evidence of fault in the process, we consider whether this is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their correspondence.
7. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the neighbour’s planning applications on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above applies to this complaint. The planning permission being complained about was granted in November 2021, and Mr X raised concerns with the case officer at that time. Yet he did not contact the Ombudsman until March 2023. I see no good reasons why he was prevented from contacting us sooner, so the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
9. And even if this time restriction did not apply, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision to grant planning permission to justify the Ombudsman pursuing the matter.
10. I appreciate permitted development rights impose restrictions on the type of side window that can be installed without obtaining planning permission. But this does not prevent a Council from approving a different arrangement where a planning application is submitted. Here, the case officer visited the application site, and was entitled to reach a professional judgement that the application of an obscure film to the lower window panes, together with the installation of opening restrictors, ensured harm to neighbouring privacy levels was reduced to an acceptable level.
11. And we cannot decide if the Council has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not the Council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. The Council had regard to Mr X’s objections and the impact of the window on his amenity when determining the application, so I am satisfied it has taken his rights into account.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way Council determined the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman