Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a lawful development certificate. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in the way it has reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant a lawful development certificate when it should have refused the application. Mr B told us the proposed development will have a major impact on his amenities and the street scene.

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 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 we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided, his comments on my draft decision and the relevant legislation and technical guidance on permitted development.

Back to top

What I found

4. The proposed development is on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the house as it currently exists. The current General Permitted Development Order does not permit development which is forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original house. The government’s technical guidance is designed for people to use if they want to understand more about the rules on permitted development. The technical guidance sets out the relevant extracts from the General Development Order. It says the Order does not permit development in any area in front of the principal elevation of a house. The guidance does not specifically refer to the principal elevation of the original house. It goes on to say the Order also prevents permitted development anywhere in front of a hypothetical line drawn through the principal elevation to the side boundary of the land surrounding the house. The technical guidance includes an example diagram showing the position of an original house and the hypothetical line.
5. The Council’s planning officer sought legal advice before reaching a decision on this application. Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision. He says the Council’s decision-making process is based on drawing an “extended” line along the face of the wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwelling and taking the “land forward” as being the land in front of that line. This would mean that the Council would grant a lawful development certificate for outbuildings in front of four of the walls that form the principal elevation of the house. He says the Council is also drawing a hypothetical line either side of the wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwelling. But Mr B says hypothetical lines are drawn either side of the principal elevation of the house (not a wall forming the principal elevation of the original house). Hypothetical lines should be drawn to the “side” boundaries and parallel to the highway.
6. The Council has considered the points Mr B has made. But its view is it has interpreted and applied the law correctly.
7. It is not our role to interpret the law and we are not an appeal body. Only the courts, ultimately, can give an authoritative interpretation of the law. The Council has done what we would expect in this case. It has taken legal advice and interpreted for itself the requirements of the Order to ascertain whether the proposed building is permitted development. Technical Guidance does not override or form a substitute for the legislation. So there would be no grounds for us to find fault by the Council in the way it has reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in the way it has reached its decision.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman