Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider separation distances when granting planning permission for a residential development next to the complainant’s home. 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 made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly consider his amenity when granting planning permission for a residential development to the rear of his house. He says one of the new dwellings is too close, so will cause overshadowing, and loss of light and amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))
3. In that regard, we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application and Planning Committee meeting available on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new dwelling positioned 10.5m from the rear elevation of his home.
7. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision. Rather, our role is to review the process by which the decision was made. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way Council determined the application to justify the Ombudsman investigating Mr X’s complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Council’s planning policies do not stipulate minimum separation distances between dwellings.
• Members of the Planning Committee undertook a site visit, so would have been familiar with the proximity of nearby properties.
• The objections from local residents are summarised in the report to the Planning Committee.
• The separation distance between Mr X’s home and the new dwellings is specifically referred to in the ‘analysis’ section of the Committee report.
8. The Council has had regard to the relevant planning issues when determining the application, so the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman