Andrew Evans, a Conservative member of South Norfolk Council, carried out the works at the side of his property in Toft Monks.
He built a shed and wood store on land that was previously a ditch and moved his fencing to enclose the area.
He did not realise he needed planning permission to carry out the work but once it was completed a neighbour put in an official complaint.
Evening sunshine lights up the crops in Toft Monks, near Beccles (Image: Nick Butcher) Mr Evans – who represents Thurlton ward at South Norfolk Council, which includes the parish of Toft Monks – then lodged a retrospective planning application.
In it, he sought permission for the extension of his garden on to a strip of land and the retention of the shed and wood store.
He said the land was previously waste land and that he had gained a licence from its owner to use it.
“We were unaware that we needed planning permission to do this and so we now do so retrospectively,” he wrote in his application.
In response, a householder raised “significant concerns” and said that land, which previously formed part of a surface water drainage ditch system, had been “illegally” infilled several years ago.
This was done by a construction company rather than Mr Evans, but the the neighbour claimed it continued to cause flooding issues on nearby pathways.
The neighbour also said that the repositioning of Mr Evans’ fence now prevented others from inspecting any obstructions or drainage issues in the area.
READ MORE: Council wades into wrangle over UK’s first capybara café
Andrew Evans (Image: South Norfolk Council) However, council officers argued that the infilling of the ditch did not form part of the application and therefore was not under consideration, and flood risk would not be “adversely increased” as a result of keeping the new sheds in place.
They described it as a “modest extension” and added: “The development does not result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and does not have adverse impacts on residential amenity, highway safety, trees, ecology and surface water drainage.”
Despite granting retrospective permission for the development, councillors agreed to impose restrictions on any future construction on the site.