Summary: A man complained about the Council’s decision to allow one of his neighbours to build a driveway across a large grassed area in front of his house. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter. This is mainly because we cannot consider complaints about actions the Council takes in its role as a social housing landlord. In addition there is no sign of fault in the way the Council considered the planning issues in question.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained about the Council’s decision to let one of his neighbours build a metalled driveway across a grassed area in front of his house so that he could park his car next to his property. In particular Mr B said the Council had unreasonably allowed the development to go ahead without planning permission so it was not lawful. Mr B also complained the Council had not taken account of the fact that local children had used the grassed area as a playground for many years, and that it had not consulted with local residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. In particular the Act says we cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. [Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5.5 (as amended)]

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint and his comments in response to a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B contacted the Council when he saw a metalled driveway being built across a large grassed area near his home. The driveway was to enable another resident to access a parking space at his property from the main road.
6. Mr B subsequently made a formal complaint to the Council about this matter. Some other local residents also petitioned the Council about their opposition to the development.
7. In response to Mr B’s complaint the Council’s Housing Service said it had considered the request for a driveway correctly under its procedures regarding off-street parking, and its decision was consistent with previous ones it had made in similar cases. The Council also said the grassed area was classed as incidental green space rather than as a designated recreation area.
8. In addition the Housing Service said there was no requirement for it to carry out a consultation process regarding this matter. But it also said as a learning point from what had happened it would change its procedures so that local residents and Councillors were consulted in future where there were requests for driveways over large grassed areas.
9. As regards the planning issues, the Council said the driveway did not need planning permission as it was permitted development under national planning legislation. However its Planning service was following up a issue with the property owner about drainage to ensure compliance with the permitted development rules.
10. Mr B was not satisfied with the Council’s responses so he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman

Back to top

Analysis

11. However, I have concluded that we should not investigate Mr B’s complaint.
12. From the information provided I understand the land in question in Mr B’s complaint is owned by the Housing Service and is on a Council housing estate. I also understand the Housing Service made the decision to allow the driveway to be built as part of its role in managing the estate.
13. But we no longer have power to investigate complaints about councils when they are acting as social housing landlords. This follows a change in the law in April 2013 which transferred authority for dealing with most complaints about council housing management to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
14. In the circumstances I consider we are prevented by law from investigating matters in Mr B’s case as the decision he complains about was taken by the Council as part of its social housing management function.
15. Nevertheless we do have jurisdiction to look at the actions of the Council’s Planning service in Mr B’s case.
16. But having considered the information provided in this respect I am not convinced we have grounds to investigate any planning matters.
17. In particular, although Mr B suggested the development was unlawful because it does not have planning permission, the Council said it had taken legal advice and concluded the driveway is permitted development under the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015. I do not see any sign of fault in the Council’s reasoning or decision-making regarding this matter.
18. Mr B complained the Council had unreasonably failed to take action to halt work on the driveway in response to his initial concerns. But I do not see that the Planning service would have been in a position to take any enforcement action at that stage if it considered the work was permitted development.
19. Councils have a duty to investigate where they are told of a possible breach of planning rules. I understand that is what the Council did in this case. As a result the Planning service has identified an issue regarding compliance with the permitted development rules concerning drainage arrangements, and it has followed this up with the property owner.
20. But I do not see sign of fault in the Council’s informal approach regarding this matter.
21. In particular I note that guidance in the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework says enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. The guidance recognises that informal action can be the most effective way of remedying a planning breach, particularly where the issue is relatively minor and the developer in question is willing to comply.

Back to top

Final decision

22. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to allow one of his neighbours to build a driveway over a grassed area in front of his house. This is because our jurisdiction does not cover complaints about the Council’s actions as a social housing landlord, and there is no sign of fault in the way it considered the planning issues in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman