Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application and that it failed to consider her objections appropriately. Mrs X stated that this had a negative impact on her enjoyment of her garden which is now overlooked. She would like the Council to ensure that a window overlooking her property is fitted with obscured glass.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (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 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained to the Council in 2024 about changes to a property which were not in line with planning permission granted in 2022. Mrs X stated that changes to windows meant that her garden is now overlooked.
7. The Council stated that their enforcement officers carried out a site visit and found the development had not been built in accordance with submitted plans. The Council stated it advised the applicant to submit a retrospective planning application so they could consider the changes.
8. The applicant submitted a planning application in 2025. The Council stated they sent a neighbour notification about the planning application to Mrs X’s property, and erected a notice on a lamppost in front of the applicant’s property.
9. The 2025 planning application was amended to include details of changes to windows on the first floor. The application was approved.
10. The Council’s delegated report noted Mrs X’s concerns the window changes on the first-floor window would provide a view to the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. However, the report stated that such views were not uncommon for properties of this type and any resultant loss of privacy would not warrant the refusal to grant planning permission.
11. Councils can take enforcement action if they find a breach of planning rules. 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.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
13. I understand that Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. However, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide that the application was acceptable. We cannot question this decision unless there was fault in how it was made. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely that I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decision. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman