Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a residential development which is contrary to its planning policy. 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 causing injustice to the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says a residential development to the rear of his home does not comply with the separation distance required by the Council’s ‘Residential Development - Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)’.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. But 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, or
• 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 the complaint correspondence, details of the recommended and actual separation distances between Mr X’s property and the nearest proposed dwelling, and the delegated report on the discharge of condition application.
4. I also considered our Assessment Code, the Council’s ‘Residential Development SPD’, and information about the planning and discharge of condition applications on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When assessing planning complaints like this, we will review the process by which a planning decision has been made, and will consider if any fault in that process is likely to have affected the outcome.
6. I find there is not enough evidence to suggest that fault, in how the Council considered the separation distance, is likely to have affected the outcome. In reaching this view, I am mindful the Council’s SPD requires a separation distance of 12.5m between a main aspect window and a side aspect. On sloping sites, or where ground levels will increase, adjustments will be made to reflect the potentially greater impact. Mr X says the nearest proposed dwelling is 23.2m from the main rear elevation of his property, and 18.5m from his extension. So, although Mr X has questioned some of the distances referred to in the officer reports and says his extension was not shown on the proposed plans, the development appears to be in accordance with the guidance in the SPD.
7. I therefore do not consider the alleged fault by the Council has caused Mr X a significant injustice, as it has not affected the planning decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman