Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter related to a garage he built on his land. We cannot resolve the core dispute between Mr X and the Council, whether the garage complies with General Permitted Development Rights. It would be for the Planning Inspectorate to determine this, if the matter went to an appeal. Since we cannot decide this core issue, we cannot say the actions flowing from the Council’s position amount to fault. We will not consider the complaints about the Council’s complaint processes in isolation, as we cannot deal with the substantive issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X has built a detached double garage as part of recent works to his house. Prior to the work, Mr X telephoned the Council to ask whether his proposal would be allowed under General Permitted Development Rules (GPDR).
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. has wrongly determined the garage does not comply with GPDR;
2. is wrongly asking him to apply for retrospective planning permission;
3. is threatening him with planning enforcement action if he does not regularise the works;
4. has not dealt with his complaint properly.
3. Mr X says the matter has caused him stress, time and trouble, which has affected his health. He wants the Council to:
• confirm the garage complies with GPDR and does not require planning permission;
• pay him £900 in compensation to apologise for the harm and stress it has caused, and for his time and trouble;
• discipline the staff responsible and provide training for them on relevant planning issues;
• provide him with an assurance he will not affect any future planning dealings he has with the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X and the Council disagree about which elevation of his house is the principal one. Mr X says it is the one approached by his vehicular access. The Council says the principal elevation is the opposite side of the house. This matters to the application of the GPDR because to be compliant with those rights, a development should not be placed beyond the line of the principal elevation of the host property. The back of Mr X’s new detached garage extends beyond the elevation which the Council considers to be the house’s principal elevation.
7. This disagreement sits at the core of Mr X’s complaint, because the Council’s view on his house’s principal elevation has led to officers:
• deciding the garage is not compliant with GPDR;
• inviting him to submit a retrospective planning application for what he has built; and
• telling him they would consider whether to take enforcement action if he decides not to make a retrospective planning application.
8. We cannot determine if the Council’s view on the house’s principal elevation is right or wrong. It is an arguable position, from both the Council’s and Mr X’s side. We cannot resolve this core dispute between Mr X and the Council. Only the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) could do this.
9. The matter could go before the PINS for determination if:
• Mr X decides to apply for retrospective planning permission, and the Council refuses that application; or
• Mr X declines to apply for planning permission, the Council decides it must take enforcement action and issues him with a formal enforcement notice.
10. In both circumstances, Mr X would have a right of appeal to the PINS against those Council’s decisions. In the event Mr X has PINS appeal rights, we would expect him to use them to resolve the matter.
11. Mr X may decide not to apply for planning permission and allow the current situation to take its course. That is a decision for him and is an option he is entitled to take. In that scenario, the Council has indicated it would then consider whether to enforce. That is the next step in the process where a local authority believes there has been a planning breach and the property’s owner decides not to apply for retrospective permission. As explained above, we cannot say the Council is wrong to hold its view that the garage amounts to a planning breach, so we cannot say appropriate actions which flow from that view, and are in line with it, are Council fault.
12. It would be for the Council to decide whether to take enforcement action. Its powers are discretionary, so officers are not required to enforce against every identified planning breach. If the Council decides not to enforce, this would leave Mr X with unauthorised works to his property. Whether to seek to regularise them in the future would be a decision for Mr X to make.
13. I note Mr X has raised concerns about the Council’s complaints process. We do not consider it a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about councils’ complaint handling if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue giving rise to the complaint. This limitation applies here, so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• the Ombudsman cannot resolve the core disagreement between Mr X and the Council, regarding the application of GPDR, which gives rise to the complaint;
• since we cannot determine whether the Council’s position in the dispute is wrong, we cannot say its actions flowing from that position are fault;
• we will not consider the complaints about the Council’s internal complaint processes in isolation, as we cannot deal with the substantive issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman