Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that a house extension is permitted development. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to correctly interpret the permitted development legislation. He says this has led to it agreeing his neighbour’s extension is permitted development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Permitted development rights allow people to carry out certain works on their homes including building some extensions, without the need to apply for planning permission.
6. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the unauthorised use of the site. Our role is to review the process by which the Council reached its decision.
7. The Council confirms it considers the materials used to build the neighbour’s extension are visually similar in appearance to the rest of the house. Therefore, it is satisfied the extension is permitted development.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s decision that his neighbour’s extension is permitted development.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman