Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing new windows as part of alterations to a property next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council allowing new windows in a neighbouring property which she says will overlook her garden and habitable rooms.

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. We 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. So, we do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. In relation to the first bullet point above, we can 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. But we cannot investigate the actions of the Planning Inspectorate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Ms X.
• information provided by the Council, which included the Stage 1 complaint response, the officer’s report for the most recent lawful development certificate (LDC) application, and clarification about the differences between that application and a previous LDC application.
• information about the planning history for the site, from the Council’s and the Planning Inspectorate’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Ms X is unhappy about the windows that have latterly been permitted at the neighbouring property.
8. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision, and we consider whether any fault is likely to have affected the eventual planning outcome.
9. I find there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome at the neighbouring property. Ms X has therefore not been caused a significant injustice by any procedural errors in the Council’s handling of the applications, so we will not start an investigation.
10. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• The Planning Inspector granted the original planning permission for the alterations to the neighbour’s property, and did not impose a condition removing permitted development rights. The Planning Inspector is not a body within our jurisdiction, so we cannot comment on its decisions.
• There is no requirement for council officers to visit neighbouring properties when assessing a planning or LDC application.
• Although the separation distance between Ms X and her neighbour has been incorrectly cited as 30m in the assessment of previous applications, the actual separation distance is still greater than that recommended in the Council’s planning guidance.
• Although Ms X’s expectations might have been raised by the Council’s previous refusal of a planning application which included the windows, there were no grounds on which the Council could refuse the most recent LDC application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman