Buckinghamshire Council (22 009 891)

Category : Planning > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 08 Mar 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s interpretation of permitted development rights. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Only the courts can determine how the legislation should be interpreted.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has wrongly interpreted permitted development rights for outbuildings where part of the curtilage of the dwelling is within an Area of Natural Beauty (AONB). This means his neighbour is now allowed to build a large and overbearing outbuilding close to the joint boundary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
  • there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X, and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Paragraph E.3 of Class E, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 says:

In the case of any land within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is article 2(3) land [in this case AONB land], development is not permitted by Class E if any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.

  1. Mr X believes this restriction applies to his neighbour’s proposed outbuilding because part of the wider curtilage is within an AONB. The Council says the outbuilding itself would need to be within the part of the curtilage designated as an AONB for this restriction to apply.
  2. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to interpret the law; only the courts can do this. Therefore, Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has interpreted the permitted development order is better dealt with by the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because only the courts can determine how the legislation should be interpreted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings