Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission to a new nearby development and how it responded to his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core matter giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the key outcome he seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a new residential development. He runs a business from his property’s ground floor and lives above. The Council granted the new development planning permission several years ago. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to consider his and his family’s property’s amenities or follow its policy and procedure when granting planning permission for the new development, which has openable windows overlooking their garden;
2. failed to provide proper reasons in response to his complaint.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused great stress, anguish and sense of injustice to him and his family. He says the windows cause overlooking and loss of privacy to his property, affecting his family and the clients visiting his business. He wants the Council to reverse the planning decision to remove the windows, admit its planning errors and help him get a solution.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Mr X says the Council failed to consider the impacts on his property from windows in the new development. He says officers allowed installation of openable windows which allow unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to his garden. The Council considered the impacts of the development in the planning report. Officers noted there would be no direct outlook from the new windows because all those facing the road on which Mr X’s property is located would be obscure glazed. The plans as permitted by the Council’s decision notice show the windows as obscure glazed. Officers gathered relevant information about the development, its location and relationship with existing properties and applied the relevant policies, as detailed in their planning report. They decided the windows would not cause sufficient loss of amenity or planning harm to warrant refusal of the permission. This was a decision they were entitled to make. In reply to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepts the openable windows may afford some views towards his garden. But officers note some overlooking is to be expected in residential areas, and already occurred at Mr X’s garden, caused by other existing buildings. In that context, officers determined the new development would not cause a significant level of overlooking when compared to that which already existed. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council officers’ decision‑making process here to allow us to go behind it or to warrant an investigation. We realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. Mr X complains about the Council’s complaints process. We do not investigate council complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. The key outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to reverse the planning decision and get the windows removed. This would require the Council revoking the permission granted over three years ago. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. That we cannot achieve this key outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core matter giving rise to the complaint; and
• we cannot achieve the key outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman