Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the development carried out by the complainant’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has allowed his neighbour to demolish most of their property to achieve the approved extensions to their home. He says the Council was misled by the applicant using the term ‘remodelling’ instead of significant demolition and rebuilding.
2. Mr X complains he suffered noise and dust disturbance and has lost privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X told the Council his neighbour had breached planning control by demolishing 90% of their home and rebuilding, when they only had planning permission to demolish 10% of the building.
7. Following a site inspection, the Council confirms two original walls have been kept. However, the replacement building was in line with the approved planning permission.
8. It also confirmed the term ‘remodelling’ has no definition in planning terms. This term was used as it was the description of the proposed development. Government guidelines encourage local planning authorities to use the original description where possible.
9. The Council considers what is built accords with the approved plans. Therefore, while more of the original building has been demolished that was initially indicated, it is not appropriate to take enforcement action.
10. Mr X says he suffered from dust and noise disturbance during construction and suffers from overlooking.
11. Before LPAs decide whether to approve planning applications, they must consider certain issues. These are called ‘material planning considerations’. Issues originating from the construction period of any work such as noise or dust is not a material planning consideration.
12. Overlooking and loss of privacy is a material planning consideration. However, the planning officer’s report shows the officer considered the impact of the scheme on neighbours:

“Due to sitting of the proposal in relation to the adjoining neighbours and tracking of the sun there would be no unacceptable impacts in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy.”

13. The report shows the Council considered the impact of the building on Mr X. The Council confirms what is built accords with the approved plans. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application and decided not to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman