Complaint 8

28 June 2004

1. On 27th October 1999, Mr Webb's agent, The John Derbyshire Design Partnership, submitted an application for Building Regulation Approval to the Council via the Combined Initial Notice and Plans Certificate as prescribed by Sections 47 and 50 of the Building Act 1984, of Walk Farm Cottage, Walk Lane, Irby upon Humber.

1.1 On 22nd November 1999, Mr Webb's agent received a letter from "A" (Director of Planning and Transportation), signed by "O" (Building Control Manager), in relation to requirements of the Building Regulations 1991 (as amended), on the contemplated construction of Walk Farm Cottage, Walk Lane (Appendix 1).

1.2 In response, Mr Webb's agent confirmed the requirements requested by "A", in their letter dated 25th November 1999.

1.3 At the time of this application for Building Regulation Approval, Mr Webb was not fully aware of the statutory instruments governing the construction of buildings etc. and relied upon his agent and the Council's Building Control department for advice.

1.4 In "A"'s letter, he made it explicitly clear that if Mr Webb's agent did not comply with the requirements of his letter, the Council would refuse Building Regulation Approval, which ultimately would have halted the commencement of the dwellings construction (this is Mr Webb's assumption of the Council's words, "refusal been issued" as it is not all together clear what would be refused in the context of their letter).

1.5 Points 1,3,4,5 of the letter are relevant to the Approved Building Regulation Documents, specifically Document M (2), but with regards to Point 2, with particular significance to the issue of the drive, there is no statutory obligation requiring Mr Webb under any Approved Building Regulation Document, not to make any drive covering of loose granular material. To suggest that the entire drive to be of a firm surface in pursuance of Document M (2) is totally unjustifiable given the drives length.

1.6 It is also quite evident on Drawing Number 1322/10 that a ramp for the disabled is located in the front of the property adjacent to the drive (Appendix 3). Clearly this is compliance with Section 1.31 (b) of Document M (2) as it states, "in the event of the space outside of the principal entrance been severely restricted or, the site been on sloping ground, an alternative entrance intended for use is accessible and suitable and there is suitable internal access, available to all who may use the building, from the alternative entrance to the principal entrance." Since the ground levels to the principal entrance is of differing ground levels to the drive, as indicated by the steps to that entrance and a brick pillar supporting the canopy over the principle entrance inhibits any ramp to the entrance, as an alternative, the agent denoted the other entrance complete with ramp. "A" has disregarded this fact in its entirety.

1.7 In an approved planning permission dated 12th March 2001 (Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL)) (Appendix 4) for a dwelling adjacent to Walk Farm Cottage, this particular applicant was informed by North East Lincolnshire Council, as an informative numbered 17, within that planning permission, "Apart from the nuisance that the gravel drive may cause due to loose stones been carried onto the highway, the levels indicate that run-off onto the highway may occur. It would be better to provide drainage to the private water system." Photograph 1 quite clearly shows a gravel drive used by the owners of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL).

1.8 Clearly, this applicant was not threatened with the possibility of refusal of his Building Regulation Approval. Instead the Council simply informed the applicant of their concerns as it was a matter that was beyond the scope of the Building Regulations and therefore not enforceable. Again, this is reinforced within another development of a further dwelling in 2002 of Applegate House, Walk Lane, Irby upon Humber, where the applicants also use loose granular material as the covering of their driveway (Photograph 2).

1.9 It is quite evident that neither property mentioned above, has any level approach to the principle entrance from their respective drives and any firm surface in the general area of the approach is less than 0.90 metres in width, converse to Building Regulations 1991, Part M (2). This is a breach of Building Regulations 1991, Part M (2) and as such the issuance of a Final Certificate as prescribed by Section 51 of the Building Act 1984 and ultimately the Building Regulation Completion Certificate from the Council, should have failed - quite clearly not in these particular cases.

1.10 This request by "A" is therefore unprecedented, as there is no lawful requirement and control over the type of materials used on drives, as stated earlier. It is quite plain to see that Mr Webb is the subject of a two-tier system within the Building Control department. This is victimization, an abuse of power and maladministration causing Mr Webb injustice.

1.11 It is apparent that "A" and "O" in these particular matters have not afforded Mr Webb the fairness and consistency in the treatment as an individual and was unjustified in their action against Mr Webb. They have not assisted in the effective operation of the Council and inappropriately used Council resources in what can only be described as a personal vendetta against Mr Webb. They were also negligent in carrying out duties in accordance with relevant policies and procedures and displayed personal conducts of unacceptable standards. This alone constitutes Gross Misconduct in the fact that they had negligently and willfully failed to comply with policies and legal requirements of the Council, as per the Council's Constitution and legislation contained in The Building Act 1984, The Building Regulations 1991 (as amended) and The Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2000.

Return to top

Investigating Officer's Findings and Conclusion

Complaint section	Findings	Action/Outcome
Sections 1.4 and 1.5 "A" and "O" abused their positions by threatening refusal of Building Regulation Approval, contrary to Part 5 of the Council's Constitution and Building Regulation Document M (2) and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.	“In terms of interpretation of this element of the legislation, I have discussed this matter with the Council’s Building Control Team Leader. He considers that this requirement would be met by a partial hard surface within the plot from which someone could alight from a vehicle onto a suitable surface, it would not therefore preclude a gravel drive.”	No action.
Section 1.6 "A" and "O" abused their positions by threatening refusal of Building Regulation Approval, contrary to Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.	Not investigated.
Investigating Officer's Conclusion	“I consider that this complaint should only be partially upheld as the letter was simply not clear.”	No action.

Return to top

Local Government Ombudsman's Findings and Conclusion

Complaint section	Findings	Action/Outcome
Sections 1.4 and 1.5 "A" and "O" abused their positions by threatening refusal of Building Regulation Approval, contrary to Part 5 of the Council's Constitution and Building Regulation Document M (2) and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.	Refused to investigate.
Section 1.6 "A" and "O" abused their positions by threatening refusal of Building Regulation Approval, contrary to Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.	Refused to investigate.
Local Government Ombudsman's Conclusion	“Whilst I appreciate your concern about inconsistency, I am not satisfied that you have suffered a significant injustice from this as your actions were not affected by the advice.”	No action.

Return to top

council complaints CFO expelled what law what law: retribution freedom of expression what is maladministration access to information contact us council corruption nolan report disclaimer links privacy policy
mud, dirt and filth no, its a service request Ł10K write off council maladministration misconduct news sitemap