Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr Y that the Council failed to ensure a new housing development complied with the planning conditions set out in the approved plans. As a result, she says neighbours could see into Mr Y’s property. The lack of privacy caused Mr Y distress, frustration and uncertainty. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to adequately investigate and respond to her complaints. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure the developer had adhered to the planning conditions and for its delayed complaint responses. The Council has already taken action to ensure the planning condition has been met. However, it has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr Y remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her son Mr Y that the Council failed to ensure a new housing development complied with the planning conditions set out in the approved plans. As a result, a new development was built near Mr Y’s property which failed to include fitted screens on the balcony. This meant Y’s neighbours could look into his living room and garden. The lack of privacy caused Mr Y distress, frustration and uncertainty.
2. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to adequately investigate and respond to her complaints.

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. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint and considered information she provided.
6. I considered information the Council provided.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Planning permission

8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

10. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

11. Councils may impose planning conditions to make a development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Planning enforcement

12. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning controls have been breached.
13. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers.

Council complaint policy

14. If a person raises a stage one complaint, the Council will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a full response within 20 working days.
15. If a person raises a stage two complaint, the Council will investigate this independently through the corporate resolution team and provide a full response within 20 working days.

What happened

16. The Council approved an application for a building with balconies near Mr Y’s property. The Council imposed a condition on the planning permission for landscaping and screening . This was necessary to protect Mr Y’s privacy and prevent views into his garden.
17. Once the developer built the flats, Mrs X realised the screening was missing and raised this with her MP on behalf of Mr Y who forwarded the matter to the Council. The Council responded to the MP in December 2023 and January 2024 saying it had correctly assessed the planning application and deemed the development acceptable.
18. In February 2024, Mrs X raised a stage one complaint saying the developer had not met conditions in respect of installing the screening.
19. The Council issued a stage one complaint response in May 2024 saying it had conducted a site visit and confirmed the developer built the balcony in the flats in accordance with the approved details. Therefore, there was no breach of planning control.
20. Mrs X raised a stage two complaint in May 2024 disputing this. The Council issued a final complaint response in July 2024 accepting fault and apologising for this. The Council agreed there should have been screening in place. However, it said it was unlikely to be able to enforce it now as it had approved and discharged the condition.
21. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.
22. Since Mrs X has complained to us, in September 2024 the Council was able to work with the developer to get the screening installed in accordance with the original plans.

Planning condition

23. The Council imposed a condition on the planning permission for landscaping details including screening to prevent views into Mr Y’s garden. The Council says it approved and discharged this condition without confirming the details of the screening with the developer. The Council accepted it was at fault by failing to ensure the development complied with the planning conditions set out in the approved plans. As a result, no screening was installed. The lack of privacy caused Mr Y distress, frustration and uncertainty. However, since Mrs X complained to us, the Council has taken corrective action to get the screening installed. This is appropriate action however I have made a further recommendation to remedy the injustice this caused Mr Y.

Complaint handling

24. When Mrs X made the stage one complaint in February 2024, the Council should have provided a complaint response within 20 working days. The Council responded in May 2024 which was a delay of 30 working days. When Mrs X made the stage two complaint in May 2024, the Council should have provided a complaint response within 20 working days. The Council responded in July 2024 which was a delay of 43 working days.
25. The delays in considering and responding to the complaint was fault which has caused Mr Y avoidable time and trouble. This has also resulted in a missed opportunity for the Council to remedy the issue earlier.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Mrs X to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to Mr Y. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Mr Y £100 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty the lack of privacy screens and delayed complaint responses caused.
3. Remind complaints officers to provide complaint responses in the timescales set out in the Council’s corporate complaints policy.
4. Remind relevant officers to ensure planning conditions are met before they are discharged to the developer.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman