Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to control noise from his neighbour’s extension developments. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council failing to attach planning conditions to limit construction working hours at his neighbour’s property. He also complained about failure to notify other neighbours and noise from the completed extension. He says his sleep was affected by the noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. Mr X has commented on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says his neighbour built a side extension and roof lift to his property without planning permission. The noise from the construction works started very early in the morning and sometimes went on until late in the evening. He says his sleep was disturbed and that the finished extension causes transmitted noise in his home which also disturbs him.
5. The Council told Mr X that the extension did not require planning approval and was permitted development. The Council could not use any planning powers to change the development. The extension meets the building regulations requirements and the party wall was not changed.
6. Mr X also complained about the construction of a rear extension to his neighbour’s property. He says the Council did not notify all residents in the area of the application. The Council says it notified the residents who were most affected by the planning considerations for the application. It notified Mr X in 2018 and he had an opportunity to object.
7. Residents complained that the Council did not attach conditions to limit the times when building works could carry on. The Council says this is not a normal procedure for minor domestic extensions. Any noise which takes place at unreasonable times can be considered under nuisance powers by environmental health officers. Officers have considered the noise complaints made by Mr X but do not consider that they would constitute a statutory nuisance as they are from normal domestic use.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman