Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to notify the complainant of a change in ground levels at a development site to the rear of his home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault has not caused the complainant an injustice, as the change in levels is likely to have been approved anyway.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should have consulted him about a 1.6m-2m increase in ground levels at a development site to the rear of his property. He says the ground floor windows of the new dwellings now overlook his garden and home, and the building height/massing has increased.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This included their complaint correspondence, photographs provided by Mr X, and the Council’s ‘Borough Design Guide’.
4. I also considered our Assessment Code, information about the planning application and discharge of condition applications on the Council’s website, and the Planning Committee report and minutes associated with the original planning application for the development.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have decided we will not start an investigation into this complaint.
6. I recognise Mr X thinks the Council should have given him an opportunity to comment on the change in ground levels before it approved them. But even if it had done so, I am not persuaded the outcome would have been any different. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that the overall separation distance between Mr X’s home and the new dwellings significantly exceeds that recommended by the Council, and there is also mature vegetation along Mr X’s rear boundary.
7. As the outcome is likely to have been the same, the alleged fault is not considered to have caused Mr X an injustice, so the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged fault in the Council’s handling of the change in levels is unlikely to have affected the overall outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman