The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a clear glazed window with unrestricted openings at a property next to the complainant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the planning application.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for a variation to his neighbour’s development, which now allows the installation of a clear glazed window with unrestricted openings. He says the window causes overlooking of an outdoor amenity space and a loss of privacy into his kitchen/dining room.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) When assessing complaints about planning decisions, we consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant, and information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
I also considered our Assessment Code, and the Ombudsman’s decision on a previous complaint from Mr X about the neighbour’s original planning application.
My assessment
The Ombudsman does not reconsider issues already addressed in response to a previous complaint. We have already considered a complaint from Mr X about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s original planning application. So, will not open another investigation into any concerns Mr X may still have about the Council’s decision on that application.
I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision on his neighbour’s recent application to vary the original permission. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against this new decision. Rather, we consider if there is evidence of procedural fault in the way it was made.
I have read the case officer’s report. It provides a detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed window on Mr X’s amenity. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on whether the variation was acceptable, even if Mr X disagrees with its conclusion. I see no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its judgement on the proposal, so I cannot question its decision and we will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the planning application.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman