Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission for development which overlooks his property. He says the Council wrongly assumed the applicant would install privacy screens to every floor facing towards his properly and failed to follow the correct process when approving a change to the approved plans for several balconies close to the boundary with his property.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. When deciding a planning application councils must look at the development plan and material planning considerations and decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations include matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide what weight to give any material considerations.
6. We do not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault in the way the decision was made.
7. Mr X says the Council was wrong to grant planning permission for development on neighbouring land as it assumed all floors would have privacy screens and this assumption is incorrect.
8. But the Council’s records show it properly considered the impact of the development on Mr X’s property, including in terms of overlooking, and decided this was acceptable. The Council therefore decided to grant planning permission and this decision dates back several years.
9. There is no evidence to show the Council wrongly assumed the top floor would have privacy screens and this would be extremely difficult to prove now. It is therefore unlikely we could show fault by the Council or that we could say any fault wrongly affected the Council’s decision.
10. Mr X also says the Council failed to follow the correct process when it approved changes to several balconies by way of a minor amendment application and says the change will result in overlooking to his property.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point. The Council considered the impact of the change on Mr X’s property and explained in its planning report why it was acceptable.
12. The change does not in any event significantly harm Mr X’s outlook or privacy and does not therefore cause significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman