Summary: The Council was at fault for not identifying an error on Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application and for repeating the error in a planning condition it imposed. Mrs X suffered overlooking and loss of privacy when her neighbour failed to comply with the planning condition. The Council agreed to apologise, contact Mrs X’s neighbour to confirm when they have complied with the condition, and check the work to ensure it satisfactorily protects Mrs X’s amenity.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to notice an error on a neighbour’s planning application when it granted planning permission. She said this meant the Council failed to properly consider the impact on her home and privacy. The Council also included a planning condition requiring the neighbour to install obscure glazed windows which Mrs X considers is not enforceable due to the error on the plans.
2. Mrs X’s neighbour did not use obscure glazed windows, and Mrs X suffers overlooking and loss of privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning permission

8. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
9. Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

10. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Enforcement

11. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
12. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
13. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
14. Government guidance says: “Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.” (National Planning Policy Framework December 2024, paragraph 60)

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. The Council granted planning permission for Mrs X’s neighbour to extend the rear of their home. The Council included a planning condition that windows to the South elevation must be obscure glazed to protect neighbouring amenity and privacy.
17. Mrs X reported concerns about her neighbour’s extension in April 2024. She said her neighbour started work and the North facing windows look directly into her home and her daughter’s bedroom. She said the planning approval required the South facing windows to be obscure glazed, but there are no windows on the South side. Mrs X assumed the Council had meant the North windows. She asked the Council to investigate.
18. The Council emailed Mrs X on 8 April, recognising the error on the plans and apologising it did not identify it during the planning process. It advised Mrs X to tell planning enforcement if her neighbour did not install obscure glazing.
19. The Council also emailed Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning agent about the issue. It said the approved plans wrongly identified the side elevation as facing South, and the planning condition requiring obscure glazing repeats the error. The Council said it considered the condition is still enforceable as it aligns with the plans and the condition would be unnecessary if referring to an elevation with no windows. It said if Mrs X’s neighbour wished to continue without obscure glazing they would need to make a variation of condition application.
20. The agent told the Council Mrs X’s neighbour confirmed the windows will be obscure glazed.
21. Mrs X’s partner complained to the Council on her behalf in January 2025. They said:
• Mrs X contacted the Council the previous year about her neighbour’s extension. Having lived with it for some time she wanted to complain about the harmful impact it had on her privacy and property value.
• It was reasonable to expect the Council to properly check the accuracy of planning applications. However, the Council did not see the neighbour’s error in labelling the North elevation as the South elevation. This led to the Council wrongly assessing the impact on Mrs X’s home. The Council repeated the error in the planning condition requiring obscure glazed windows, making it unenforceable. If Mrs X had been aware the windows were in the North elevation she would have objected to the application.
• Mrs X’s neighbour had not built the extension to plan. They replaced a large triangular window with a much smaller rectangular one. And they had not used obscure glazing in the windows facing Mrs X’s home.
• The Council’s lack of due diligence caused direct harm to the enjoyment of Mrs X’s home from overlooking and reduced the value of her home.
22. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in February 2025. It said:
• Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning agent mistakenly labelled the side elevation as the ‘South elevation’ on the application plans. The Council apologised Mrs X could not pick this up and make representations during the consultation process.
• The planning officer failed to identify and correct the labelling error on the plans. However, it is clear they considered the impact on Mrs X’s home. That is because they imposed a condition requiring the windows on the ‘South elevation’ to be obscure glazed with the aim this would avoid the overlooking Mrs X reports.
• It contacted the agent in April 2024 in response to Mrs X’s concerns, pointing out the error and explaining the condition was still enforceable. The agent told the Council Mrs X’s neighbour intended to install obscure glazing.
• It reminded officers the importance of checking plans and passed Mrs X’s complaint about the planning breach to the enforcement team to investigate.
23. The Council’s planning enforcement team opened an investigation on 10 February 2025. An officer visited the site in April 2025. The house was empty so they could not gain access to see the windows facing Mrs X’s home. However, the officer did not other windows to the extension had changed from the approved plans. The officer left a card asking Mrs X’s neighbour to contact them.
24. The officer spoke to the neighbour’s builder in May 2025. The builder said works were not yet completed but Mrs X’s neighbour was ordering obscure glazed windows.

My investigation

25. Mrs X confirmed her neighbour’s extension is complete and the windows facing her home are not obscure glazed. She was unaware of the outcome of the Council’s planning enforcement investigation.
26. The Council recognised it failed to identify the plans wrongly labelled the North elevation as the South elevation when it decided Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application. The Council also acknowledged it then referred to the South elevation in error when imposing a condition requiring obscure glazing.
27. The Council said it drew the applicant’s attention to the error after Mrs X raised the issue. It received assurances the applicant would install obscure glazing.
28. The Council confirmed its position is that, due to the positioning of the window relative to Mrs X’s windows, obscure glazing is needed. It will progress formal enforcement action if it cannot secure voluntary compliance in the coming months.
29. The Council told me an enforcement officer visited the site on 30 April 2025. Works were underway but the property was not occupied, and it was not possible to gain access. The builder then contacted the Council and said the applicant was ordering obscure glazing to meet the condition before occupying the property.
30. The Council’s enforcement case remains open, and it is seeking confirmation of when the promised works will be completed.
31. The Council apologised for any inconvenience caused by the delay securing obscure glazing. It needs to use enforcement action proportionately and considering the positive response to informal requests, it gave the applicant reasonable time to remedy the situation. The Council understands the obscure glazing is expected to arrive by the end of October.

Analysis

32. The Council accepts it did not identify Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application incorrectly labelled the North elevation as the South elevation, resulting in a planning condition also containing the same error. That was fault. This caused Mrs X uncertainty and distress that her amenity and privacy would not be protected.
33. I did not find the Council at fault for failing to consider the impact on Mrs X’s home. The planning condition requiring obscure glazing to the side elevation clearly states this is to safeguard the amenity and privacy of adjoining residential property. The application site is a terraced home, with Mrs X on one side and another property to the other side. While the Council did not specifically refer to Mrs X’s home it is clear it considered the impact the side elevation windows would have on the adjoining neighbour, which is Mrs X’s home.
34. I also did not find fault in the Council’s planning enforcement investigation to date. The Council contacted Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning agent and builder. They both confirmed the neighbour would install obscure glazing.
35. The delays up to this point installing obscure glazing rest with Mrs X’s neighbour, and are not the fault of the Council.
36. Government guidance expects councils to act proportionately, and we would not criticise a council for seeking to address planning harm by negotiation before taking formal action. The Council has confirmed it is prepared to take formal action if Mrs X’s neighbour does not install obscure glazing within a reasonable timeframe.
37. Mrs X questioned whether the planning condition requiring obscure glazing is enforceable, since it refers to the South elevation when the windows are in the North elevation. The Council considers the condition is still enforceable, because it aligns with the applicant’s plans. At this stage, formal enforcement action has not started, and it is not possible to say whether the Council will be able to successfully enforce the condition. If Mrs X’s neighbour refuses to install obscure glazing, and it transpires the condition is not enforceable, Mrs X can raise the complaint again - if she does so within twelve months of becoming aware the condition is not enforceable.

Back to top

Agreed Action

38. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Contact Mrs X’s neighbour for confirmation of when the obscure glazing has been installed.
• If this has not happened, set a deadline by which they must install obscure glazing, warning that formal enforcement action may follow if this does not happen.
• Send a letter of apology to Mrs X for not identifying the error on the planning forms, acknowledging the uncertainty and distress this caused, and committing to visit the site or obtain evidence to assess the obscure glazing once installed to ensure it satisfactorily protects Mrs X’s amenity.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

40. I found the Council at fault for not identifying the error on Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application and for repeating the error in a planning condition the Council imposed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman