Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on an extension built by the complainant’s neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss X, complains the Council:
• failed to tell her about her neighbour’s extension
• failed to act on non-matching materials and non-adherence to the approved plans
• failed to consider the extension is built over a shared sewer; and
• failed to consider the property will not accommodate enough cars for what a five-bedroomed house is now.
2. Miss X wants the Council to:
• require the neighbours to put in a retrospective planning application
• send its Building Regulations team to check the build over the sewer; and
• enforce adherence to approved plans and requirement for matching materials.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council introduced a Householder Extension Local Development Order (LDO) in 2017. The Council’s explanation for the LDO says it allows certain extensions to be built without planning permission. The LDO does not remove any nationally set ‘permitted development ‘rights which allow certain extensions to a property without needing planning permission. However, it broadens the range of extensions homeowners can carry out without needing to apply for full planning permission. These include:
• erection of single storey rear and side extensions
• erection of a two-storey extension; and
• first floor side and rear extensions.
7. There are a series of checks applicants must make and they must follow detailed design guidance in the LDO design guide. The Council does not publicly advertise LDO applications. But applicants must discuss the proposals with their neighbours.
8. The neighbour signed a declaration stating they had informed their neighbours. Miss X says this is not true, however the neighbour’s agent advised the Council the neighbours were notified verbally. There is no requirement for the Council to carry out specific checks. Therefore, I cannot find fault on this point.
9. Miss X told the Council her neighbour had not built according to the plans and had not used matching materials.
10. The Council says the neighbour’s extension has been built in blockwork which should eventually be rendered. It says the neighbour must complete or substantially complete the extension by September 2025. The Council considers it is too soon to consider taking action against the use of non-matching materials.
11. It has also considered Miss X’s report that a first-floor window is present which is not shown on the plans. The Council has advised the additional window does not need planning permission if it remains obscure glazed and top opening. Therefore, it is not expedient to take action.
12. The Council has also confirmed the extension meets the requirements of the LDO. Therefore, it cannot consider the development against planning policies. It has also confirmed:
• on street parking is not a planning matter; and
• building over the sewer is a building control issue, it provided Miss X with the details of the private building control inspector engaged by her neighbour; and
• party wall issues are not a Council matter

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The complaint does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman