Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s building development. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation will not lead to the outcomes Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to revoke permitted development rights in 2018 at the time it granted planning permission for a neighbour’s first-floor extension. As a result, an unsightly garage door has been permitted which Mr X thinks might affect house prices and cause flooding and drainage issues in the area. He wants the door removed and the dismissal of the officers involved.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• 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

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2018 a neighbour in Mr X’s road obtained planning permission from the Council to build a first-floor extension.
5. In 2020 the neighbour submitted an application for a certificate of lawfulness for a proposed garage door for the existing car port. As the Council decided the door could not be classed as development requiring planning permission, it issued the certificate.
6. Unhappy with what he considered to be an unattractive garage door which might have an impact on flood management and drains in the area, Mr X complained to the Council. He said it was at fault in not setting a condition in the 2018 permission to prevent the installation of the garage door.
7. The Council responded by explaining that when planning permission for the properties in the road had been granted about 30 years ago, it had removed rights to erect buildings and extensions without planning permission. However, as the garage door was neither a building nor an extension it was not prevented by the conditioned permission and instead was permitted development for which planning permission was not required. It explained that a condition to remove permitted development rights to enclose a car port would not have been set because it would have failed the tests of relevance and reasonableness in national planning guidance. It confirmed that any impact on access for another neighbour living next to the property in question was a private matter and that Mr X could refer his concerns about drainage and flooding to the relevant bodies.
8. Mr X progressed his complaint to the next stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said his neighbour had deliberately planned his work in stages and that the Council should have added restrictions to prevent future extra ground floor work by the use of permitted development rights. He said his road’s aesthetics had been ruined by the door.
9. The Council explained why it did not agree with Mr X that it should have anticipated the subsequent installation of a garage door or that its development should have been expressly conditioned in the 2018 application. It pointed out it would have been perverse for a condition to have been placed on an earlier planning decision, unless there was a very clear and valid reason to do so and that there was no such reason here, notwithstanding that Mr X considered the door to be unsightly.

Assessment

10. While I understand Mr X dislikes the appearance of the garage door, the Council has provided an appropriate and adequate response to his complaint and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or be likely to find evidence of fault.
11. Moreover, Mr X’s injustice appears limited and he has been directed to the appropriate bodies with his concerns about drainage and flooding.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the Council should have consulted with the Environment Agency and the water company in relation to flooding and drainage issues. However, the application was for a Lawful Development Certificate for which no consultation was necessary. Mr X refers to an access problem which the door has created for another neighbour but this is not Mr X’s injustice and is a matter for this neighbour to pursue if they so wish.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation will not lead to the outcomes Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman