Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning decision. 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 the Council took no account of his objection when it granted planning permission for changes to a neighbouring property. Mr B says his home is now overlooked. Mr B would like the Council to apologise and review its procedures.

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), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr B and have viewed planning records online.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application for changes to the property which is to the rear of Mr B’s property. The Council told Mr B about the application and invited his comments. Mr B put in an objection which the Council acknowledged. Mr B objected to the proposed raised deck which he said would overlook his home and garden.
7. The Council decided to grant the application planning permission. The Council wrote a case report setting out its consideration of the application.
8. Mr B became aware that planning permission had been granted when building work started. Mr B says his home is now significantly overlooked by the new raised deck.
9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because the information does not suggest the Council was at fault for the way it reached its decision to grant planning permission.
10. The Council considered Mr B’s objection when it assessed the application. The Council summarised Mr B’s objection in the case report. The Council explained why it considered the proposal was acceptable.
11. A key factor for the Council was the distance between the proposed development and Mr B’s property. The Council said this distance far exceeds the minimum distance the Council generally considers acceptable when assessing overlooking between properties. This was a relevant factor for the Council to take into account. The Council also provided further explanation in response to Mr B’s complaint.
12. Mr B strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision that the impact on his property is acceptable. But, unless there is evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision, we cannot say the Council was right or wrong to grant planning permission.
13. Mr B also complains he has seen two case reports for this application, only one of which addresses his objections. Mr B would like to know why the Council produced two case reports. Mr B has provided copies of both case reports. The case report which did not refer to Mr B’s objections is for a different planning application for the site. The case report for the planning application Mr B has complained about clearly refers to Mr B’s objections. So, this is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman