THE States watchdog will not review the development of a housing estate at Roseville despite claims of a planning law breach. Scrutiny chairman Jean Pritchard said that the committee did not act on complaints from individuals.

But it is taking seriously the case of Roseville neighbour Dave Perriam and will consider it at its next meeting.

Mr Perriam has spent the last two years lobbying politicians over the development. He claims that the Guernsey Housing Association’s £5m. project went against planning law.

He said that his house was now completely overshadowed by the blocks of flats and that its value had been severely reduced.

His report, filed with Scrutiny, includes all his correspondence with Environment, the Housing Association and various deputies.

‘Scrutiny has a policy of not looking at individual grievances but we have got his submission and will see if there is anything in there that we can pursue within the committee’s mandate,’ said Deputy Pritchard.

She said reports on BBC Guernsey yesterday that Environment had asked the committee to decide whether an investigation was necessary were completely wrong.

She clarified that the calls had come from the resident.

‘It has to be given due consideration in the fairness of everyone involved but we will seriously consider what the resident has said.’

Mr Perriam said he was happy with the response.

‘In the letter it said the committee does not discuss personal grievances so I see it as a bit of an achievement it is looking into my case,’ he said.

‘I will wait with interest but almost know what I will get back.’

Mr Perriam is incensed that his family lost its privacy despite assurances that it would not happen.

A 12ft window in one of the flats now looks straight into their bathroom, his son’s bedroom and the garden, which is now completely in the shadow of the development.

He thinks that the value of his house has slumped £50,000 as a result.

He said a planning brief showed that his house would fall into a privacy zone and cited planning policies specifically prohibiting overlooking.

Mr Perriam said he did not see the final detailed plans and felt they must have been very different from the original brief. He claimed four members of Scrutiny, including Deputy Ron Le Moignan, supported his case.

‘I don’t want to name people too much, but will do at the end if I don’t get a decent response.’