Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decisions relating to a property she has since bought. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council failed to ensure a developer put in place suitable noise attenuation measures for a property she bought as a new-build in 2017. She says the noise from a nearby road causes her anxiety and depression and she is concerned about the impact dirt and pollution from a nearby road is having on her physical health.

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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mrs X’s property is next to a busy A-road. Her complaint concerns the lack of acoustic windows, acoustic vents and acoustic barriers installed at her property by the developer, which she believes contravenes the planning permission.
5. In support of her complaint Mrs X has provided a copy of the conditions to the planning permission which sets out the requirements for the noise attenuation measures detailed above. However the conditions relate to a grant of planning permission dating back to 2013, which no longer applies.
6. In determining the developer’s application to vary the original planning permission the Council removed the requirement for acoustic windows. It approved details of acoustic vents and for a close-boarded fence along the boundary of Mrs X’s property facing the road and confirms the planning permission has broadly been complied with. The Council acknowledges the developer installed a different brand of acoustic window vent but it is satisfied the one installed is equivalent to the one approved. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s view on this point but we cannot question its judgement or say the issue causes her significant injustice. This is because there is not enough evidence to show the noise issues result solely or primarily from the vents themselves.
7. Mrs X also believes the Council should not have approved a fence as an acoustic barrier but the wording of the condition to the original planning permission shows this was what the Council had in mind when it set the condition. There was no suggestion the developer needed to put in place anything more when Mrs X agreed to purchase her property and it was for her to ensure she was happy with this before proceeding with her purchase.
8. Although Mrs X has now found that the Council originally set a requirement for the developer to install acoustic windows this was removed under the varied planning permission and did not apply at the time the developer implemented the planning permission. Mrs X could not therefore have expected it when she bought the property. Had the developer installed acoustic windows it may have increased the asking price to cover the additional costs, and if Mrs X was not satisfied with the windows the developer installed she could have decided not to proceed with her purchase.
9. Mrs X reports that there has been an increase in noise levels in recent years as a result of increases in construction traffic but there is nothing to suggest this was foreseeable at the time of the Council’s decision. We could not therefore say the Council should have refused the developer’s application to vary the original planning permission. In any event, more than seven years have passed since the Council’s decisions and it is unlikely we could effectively investigate the Council’s processes so long after it made its decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman