Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Dr Z complains on behalf of he and two neighbours who I will call Mr X and My Y. He says the Council failed to follow its own guidelines on separation distances when approving a planning application for a development close to their homes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 or continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a planning application for two plots (which I will call Plot 1 and Plot 2) close to the complainant’s homes. Plot 1 is to the side of Mr X’s home and Plot 2 is to the rear of Mr Y’s home.
6. The Planning Officer produced a report that took into consideration comments received objecting to the application, including those from Dr Z and Mr Y.
7. Within the report is a section on residential amenity considerations of matters which impact on those living near to the site, including Mr X and Mr Y, taking into account matters such as separation distances.
8. Before the application was considered by committee meeting, Dr Z submitted further representations regarding the separation distances between plots and Mr X and My Y’s homes. The Planning Officer provided an additional report responding to these comments. Dr Z also spoken at the meeting.
9. Having considered the Planning Officers report I am satisfied that the separation distances between Mr X and Mr Y’s properties were fully considered and that the Planning Officer considered the Council’s guidance when reaching their conclusion.
10. 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 the complainants may not agree with the decision taken by the Council on the application, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
11. The issues raised in the complaint relate to the separation distances of Mr X and Mr Y’s property. Even had there been fault causing Mr X and My Y an injustice, Dr X himself would not have suffered any injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman