Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve their neighbour’s retrospective planning application. There is no fault with the way the Council reached its decision and we have closed the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council reached its decision to approve their neighbour’s retrospective planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr and Mrs X’s complaint and supporting information.
5. I have also considered the officer’s report and the Council’s response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint.
6. I have written to Mr and Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr and Mrs X’s neighbours constructed a raised wooden platform and shed in their garden. Mr and Mrs X believed it required planning permission. They reported this to the Council.

Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour’s planning application

8. Mr and Mrs X’s neighbours submitted a retrospective planning application for ‘the erection of a raised platform with part fence surround and shed’ to the Council. Mr and Mrs X said they received a notification of the application from the Council. They complained no one from the Council visited their property to assess the impact even though they had been the ones to report the development to enforcement.
9. Mr and Mrs X and the Parish Council objected to the application. This was on the grounds of overshadowing, loss of privacy, the appearance and character of the development, noise, disturbance, loss of amenity, and relevant planning policies.
10. The Council granted retrospective approval for ‘the retention of a raised platform with part fence surround, shed and swimming pool plant’. This was subject to the condition that within two months of the date of permission, a fence, not less than 1.8 metres in height shall be erected along the south eastern boundary. This was to preserve the visual amenity of the area and protect neighbouring residential amenities.

Mr and Mrs X’s complaint

11. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council. They said the Council amended the application description to a add ‘pool plant’ and they were not consulted on the change. They also complained about the quality of the plans, the noise of the pool pump, damage to trees and that the neighbours had breached copyright.
12. The Council responded. It said the officer changed the application to title to give a more complete description of the proposal. It said as the work was already in place, there was no requirement to notify the neighbours. The Council said the plans were sufficient to assess the application especially as the work was already in place. It said Mr and Mrs X had not made a complaint to environmental health about the noise of the pump. The Council said the damage to trees and the issue of copyright was a private law issue the Council would not consider.
13. Mr and Mrs X reported to the Council that the neighbours had not erected the 1.8m fence as per the planning condition. The Council responded the next day to say it had referred this report to planning enforcement.
14. Mr and Mrs X escalated their complaint to stage 2 as they disagreed with some of the Council’s response.
15. The Council’s stage 2 response reiterated the points it made in its first response. It confirmed it had considered Mr and Mrs X’s residential amenity and it included the condition for a fence to protect their privacy and amenity. It added the neighbour had now erected the fence.
16. The Council addressed the issues of the noise of the pool pump by consulting environmental health on a more recent application to replace the pool pump house. Environmental health said although some level of noise would arise from the existing ground source heat pump, this is tempered by its siting beneath the decking. It considered the pool water circulating pump would not give rise to a level of noise that would significantly affect the adjoining occupier.
17. Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. They disputed how environmental health could have assessed the noise levels of pool pump given it was not in use. They questioned whether the ‘fence’ erected by the neighbour could be considered acceptable given they had just attached pieces of wood to the top of the existing fence. They said the Council based its decision on wrong information as the pool pump is not 20m from their premises and it is not surrounded by a large wall as suggested by the Council. They continued to raise concerns about the damage to a tree and the breach of copyright.

My findings

18. Mr and Mrs X are clearly aggrieved by the Council’s decision to retrospectively approve their neighbour’s application. There was no fault with the way the Council reached its decision.
19. It correctly followed planning procedure in terms of consulting neighbours. The Council explained why it did not need to notify neighbours about the change in the application details.
20. The Council responded quickly to Mr and Mrs X’s report the neighbour had not erected the conditioned fence. Mr and Mrs X did not agree with the construction of the fence. However, the neighbours are not in breach of the condition and the Council did not need to take matters further.
21. Mr and Mrs X’s raised concerns the Council used incorrect information to support its decision. They said the neighbour’s development was closer than 20m to their property. The Council said it measured this on a map and it may not have been a precise measurement. It also advised the distance of the pump from the neighbouring property would not be a material consideration, and the key factor would be the direction in which the pump faced.
22. If Mr and Mrs X remain unhappy with the noise of the pool pump, they have the opportunity to report the issue to the environmental health department once the new pump house has been constructed.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have closed this complaint. There is no fault with the way the Council reached its decision to grant retrospective approval.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman