Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development close to his home. He says the application was approved by the Planning Committee without important facts being disclosed or discussed and without proper consideration of the facts, including the separation distance between the development and his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X provided his objections to a planning application for a new development close to his home which he says will cause overlooking and impact negatively on his amenity.
7. Objections to the application, including Mr X’s, and the presentations of public speakers were considered by the Planning Committee.Having done so, Members decided to vote in favour of the application.
8. Mr X complained about the decision to the Council and said the Committee had not properly considered all the facts, highlighting particularly the issue of separation distances between the development and his property which he said had not been followed.
9. The Council’s response, while brief, referred Mr X to the Committee Report which it said provided a detailed approach to the issues with which Mr X was concerned.
10. Within the report is a section on residential amenity considerations of matters which impact on those living near to the site, including Mr X. The report makes clear that the separation distances followed by the Council apply in situations where existing and proposed rear habitable room windows directly face each other.
11. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may not agree with decision taken by the Council on the application, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
12. Mr X says the Council did not follow its separation distance requirements. However, his property and the new development do not face each other rear to rear. Mr X’s property has an extension at its rear but the view from the development is to its side and not to the rear.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman