Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to a neighbour. He says the Council did not require his neighbour to install obscured glazing despite this being a requirement for other properties in the road. He says this has resulted in a significant loss of privacy.

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), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for an extension to their property, including conversion of the roof. Mr X objected. He said this would have an unacceptable impact on his privacy.
6. The Planning Officer’s report shows the Council considered whether to approve the planning application in line with the local development plan and any material planning considerations, including the impact on neighbouring amenity.
7. The Council considered there would not be an unacceptable loss of privacy due to the distance between properties and because the new window is above the level of Mr X’s home. It also noted the intervening fenceline and shrubbery. For these reasons, it decided additional measures, including obscured glazing, were not required.
8. I will not investigate this complaint. The Officer’s report shows the decision was made in line with relevant planning polices and took account of the impact on Mr X’s amenity.
9. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman