Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s breach of planning control in relation to material used for a neighbour’s extension. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council failed to take enforcement action against his neighbour for breaches of the rules around ‘permitted development’. He says his neighbour’s development does not blend in with the existing house and causes him distress.

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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) allows certain development without the need for planning permission. This is known as ‘permitted development’. Permitted development rights are subject to limitations and exclusions, but when a proposal falls within the parameters of development allowed by the Order it will not require planning permission.
7. Although permitted development does not require planning permission a person may apply to the local planning authority for a certificate of lawfulness for their proposal. This determines whether the development proposed is permitted or whether it requires separate planning permission. If the proposal is permitted development, and if the applicant carries out the development in accordance with the approved plans, the Council cannot stop it.
8. The Council granted Mr X’s neighbour a certificate of lawfulness for a single storey extension and a loft conversion including a dormer window.
9. Mr X complains that the materials used breach the rules of the ‘General Permitted Development Order’ as they do not match the existing appearance of the house. He states this has resulted in a loss of amenity and causes him distress.
10. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against the Council’s decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made. The Council disagrees with Mr X and says the works have been built in compliance with the permitted development rules. These rules say the materials used in any exterior work must be ‘of similar appearance’ to those already used in the existing building. The Council decided that the materials used for the dormer window and extension are similar enough in appearance to the existing features of the house to minimise visual intrusion. It also decided the dimensions of the extension and dormer window are in line with the approved plans.
11. This is a decision the Council was entitled to reach and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes.
12. I understand Mr X feels distressed by the appearance of the extension and the dormer window installed on his neighbour’s house. However, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council. The injustice claimed by Mr X is also limited in any event, and not sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman