The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new house close to the complainant’s home. An investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed to comply with nation planning guidance when it granted planning permission for a new property close to his home. He says windows in the new property are too close and overlook his home, resulting in a loss of privacy.
He wants either: the windows reduced; screening installed; or compensation for loss of privacy and loss of property value.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council received a planning application for a new property in 2019. The previous occupier of Mr X’s home was notified of the application but did not make any comments. The planning officer’s report on the proposal refers to overlooking and separation distances. The Council considered the proposal was acceptable and granted planning permission in February 2020.
Mr X purchased his home about nine months later.
In English law, there is a principle of ‘caveat emptor’ which translates as “let the buyer beware.” The rule places the responsibility on the buyer to conduct all necessary due diligence (for example, searches of the Council’s planning records, site visits, etc) before deciding to proceed with a purchase.
Mr X bought his home about nine months after the Council granted planning permission. Information about the planning permission for the development, including the location of the new property and its proximity to what is now Mr X’s home (whether building work had started or not) was available. It should have been picked up by Mr X or his solicitor during the conveyancing process before he bought his home.
The Council’s planning officer report shows the extent to which the Council had considered the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties.
Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s professional judgment in this regard unless it is tainted by fault. As the Council considered the matter before deciding to grant permission for the new property, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman