Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s determination of a planning application for a residential development adjacent 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 considered the application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly consider loss of light, loss of privacy and overdominance when determining a planning application for a residential development next to his home. In particular, he says the proposal does not meet the required separation distances. As a result, one of the new dwellings overlooks his home, is overly dominant, and causes a significant loss of light to his rear garden and kitchen/dining area.

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. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision on a planning application. And 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 the complainant, including the complaint responses and photographs of the development. I have also considered the planning application documents on the Council’s website and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X thinks the new dwelling nearest his home has an unacceptable impact on his residential amenity and should have been refused.
6. But it was ultimately for the council officers to use their professional judgement to decide whether the proposal was unduly detrimental, even if their view differs from Mr X's. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in the way it was made.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes to justify us investigating. In reaching this view, I am mindful that the case officer’s report takes an overview that “the proposal will not have an unduly detrimental impact on any neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, over-dominance or overlooking”. Furthermore, the separation distances quoted by Mr X do not apply here, as the rear elevation of his property does not directly face the front elevation of the new dwelling. And in my experience, the positioning/proximity of the new dwelling relative to Mr X’s home is not a particularly unusual situation for this kind of residential setting.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman