Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application. The Council was at fault for not considering the potential impact of the development on Mrs X’s home during the application process. However, the distance between Mrs X’s windows and the development’s windows is more than the minimum acceptable distance of 22 metres, so the fault did not cause a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application. Mrs X said the Council failed to assess the impact of the development on properties to the south, including her home. Mrs X said she did not object to the planning application at the time, as the Council’s report said there would be no overlooking. However, the development now overlooks her bedroom, lounge and garden.
2. Mrs X said this caused her loss of privacy and she no longer feels comfortable using key rooms in her home. She said this caused her distress and anxiety and she wants the Council to act to prevent overlooking. Mrs X also wants the Ombudsman to recognise the Council’s error led to this result and stopped her from objecting at the suitable stage of the process.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council, as well as the Council’s planning portal, relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Planning applications

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 the impact on neighbouring amenities.
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.
11. Council officers and planning committees are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers and members will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using aerial photographs and other tools such as Google Streetview.

The Council’s planning application guidance

12. The Council’s guidance (Space around dwellings and new flats) states that to maintain privacy, the windows of two storey developments should be a minimum of 22 metres from the principal windows of the property they are facing.
13. The guidance also states the minimum acceptable distance between the rear of one or two-storey residential buildings is 22 metres.

Background

14. Mrs X received a planning notice letter from the Council in 2022 for a new residential development to the north of her home. The developer’s design and access statement said the high boundary fence at the back of Mrs X’s property would mean the development would not overlook her home. Mrs X said based on this information, she did not object at the time.

What happened

15. In May 2025, the developers began working on the development. Mrs X said she realised the upper storey windows of the development overlooked her lounge, garden and bedroom.
16. Mrs X complained to the Council in June 2025. Mrs X said she was aware of the original planning application, but it did not specify what the final height or elevation of the new buildings would be. Mrs X said construction had now started and she was concerned about the impact on her privacy, as the new buildings overlooked her garden and the back rooms of her home. Mrs X also complained the Council did not consider the impact on her home when it approved the application and she asked the Council to consider installing screening or planting to block the view.
17. The Council responded and accepted its case officer’s report in December 2022 did not specifically mention the potential impact to her property or road. The Council noted the developer’s design and access statement said the boundary fence at the back of Mrs X’s property was high and this would stop overlooking but it did not explain this in more detail in its case officer’s report to committee.
18. Around this time, the Council visited Mrs X’s property to assess the alleged loss of privacy and found the top windows of the development overlooked her home. The Council said its guidance states there must be a minimum distance of 22 metres between the back of a residential property and a neighbouring property. The Council measured the distance as being more than 22 metres and noted that the rear fence was well above the typical 1.8 to 2 metres commonly found in rear gardens. On this basis it said it was unlikely it would have refused the application even if the report had mentioned the development would overlook Mrs X’s property.
19. In its response, the Council also said it could not have imposed a planning condition for the developer to install obscure glazing on the upper windows, as the distance to Mrs X’s property was more than the minimum needed. However, the Council said it would contact the developer to ask if it would consider planting more trees as a visual barrier.
20. A few days later, Mrs X escalated the complaint. The Council responded to repeat that it accepted it had not considered the potential impact on the properties to the south of the development, including Mrs X’s home. The Council apologised and said it should have included these properties to make it clear the distance from the development met the Council’s guidance. The Council also said it found the planning application and approval processes were completed correctly. The Council confirmed it was speaking with the developer about potential measures to reduce the overlooking. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman in early September 2025.
21. In early October 2025, the Council told Mrs X it had asked the developer to add more trees between the development and her property to block the overlooking. However, this was not possible as there was a utilities trench containing pipes and cables.

My findings

22. The Council accepted it should have considered the impact of the development on Mrs X’s property and other properties in her road. It also accepted it should have made it clear in the report the distance between the development and Mrs X’s property was more than the minimum needed. The failure to do this was fault.
23. Although the Council was at fault, the fault did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice. If the Council had correctly considered the potential impact on Mrs X’s property, it is unlikely, on balance, that it would have rejected the application or imposed planning conditions as the distance between her property and the development is more than the minimum 22 metres set out in its guidance.
24. The Council asked the developer to consider planting more trees to reduce the overlooking onto Mrs X’s property. The developer said it could not do this because of the utilities trench. The Council could not enforce this as it was a request rather than an enforceable planning condition. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

25. On the evidence considered, I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman