Summary: Mr X complained an adjoining semi-detached house does not comply with Building Regulations. Mr X experienced noise nuisance and suffered distress. There was no fault in the Council’s decision-making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained an adjoining semi-detached house does not comply with Building Regulations.
2. Mr X said the Council previously unlawfully developed the house dating back to 1993, and completed incorrect planning notices in a 2022 change of use application to itself which it later withdrew.
3. Mr X said the Council sold the property without adding new flooring or insulation to reduce noise, and did not complete works on fire safety under part B of the Building Regulations.
4. Mr X said the Council then accepted an incorrect change of use application from the new property owner, who claimed to own the whole site, without a Building Control application. Building Control subsequently signed off the property despite it not complying with Part E of the Building Regulations 2010.
5. Mr X complained this affected his amenity. He experiences noise nuisance, including from fire doors kept in the property. The property also has no direct right of access, other than by using Mr X’s land. He has also suffered distress raising the issues with the Council over several years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. Mr X highlighted alleged historic issues regarding planning permission and Building Regulations dating back to 1993.
9. The Ombudsman’s investigation in 2023 identified the Council’s procedural fault in not acquiring planning permission for the change of use to a residential care facility. However, on the evidence seen, from our previous investigation, and the recent planning records, there were conversion works undertaken at the neighbouring property for its residential care use. A housing association and the Council also completed some sound mitigation. Our previous investigation addressed Mr X’s injustice from noise nuisance and distress. The situation has now moved on, with a new owner and new planning permission and Building Control approval. In the circumstances, I do not consider it is proportionate to revisit earlier events. I have only considered the recent issues arising since our 2023 investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Building Regulations

12. Part 2, Regulation 5 of the Building Regulations 2010 defines a material change of use as where there is a change in the purposes or the circumstances in which a building is used. For example, where the building is used as a dwelling where previously it was not.
13. Where there is a material change of use of the whole of a building, such work, if any, shall be carried out as is necessary to ensure that the building complies with Schudule1, Part E, covering resistance to the passage of sound. (Part 2, Regulation 6 (1)(f), The Building Regulations 2010.
14. Dwelling-houses, flats and rooms for residential purposes shall be designed and constructed in such a way that they provide reasonable resistance to sound from other parts of the same building and from adjoining buildings. (Schudule1, Part E1, The Building Regulations 2010)
15. For a dwelling house formed by a material change of use, walls and floors should have a minimum airborne sound insulation of 43 decibels. And impact sound insulation should allow a maximum of 64db. (Resistance to sound: Approved Document E)

What happened

16. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
17. Mr X’s home shares a party wall with an adjoining property. The adjoining property is a former police service staff house. I have referred to the adjoining property in my decision as Property 1.
18. Property 1 was converted into a non-residential educational centre in 1993 by the then County Council (now the Council). The Council leased Property 1 to a housing association in 2016. The housing association used Property 1 for residential care for people needing supported living placements. While the housing association was responsible for Property 1, it was the Council who placed eligible tenants there.
19. The housing associated refurbished Property 1 and installed fire doors and an alarm system before using it for supported living.
20. The housing associated carried out work to reduce noise from Property 1 in 2017 after complaints from Mr X.
21. A tenant moved out of Property 1 in 2021. Mr X again spoke to the housing association about the noise from Property 1. The housing association gave the Council a list of works it was planning to do before a new tenant moved in. This included sound insulation. However, the Council moved a new tenant into Property 1 without telling the housing association.
22. The Council decided it would build an insulated false wall along the ground floor of Property 1 to reduce noise transfer to Mr X’s property. It told Mr X to do the same.
23. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in 2022. We found the Council should have applied for a change of use from Class F1 (non-residential education centre) to Class C2 (residential accommodation and care to people in need of care) before leasing Property 1 to the housing association in 2016. We found the Council at fault for moving a new tenant into Property 1 before the housing association had chance to complete sound insulation work. We found Mr X suffered avoidable noise nuisance and distress, which the Council agreed to provide a remedy for.
24. The new tenant moved out of Property 1 in December 2022. The Council started the process of retrospectively gaining permission to change the use of Property 1 from Class F1 to Class C2. However, this resulted in issues being raised by the Council’s Environmental Protection team, on testing and insulating noise between the properties, and by Building Control, on fire safety. The Council therefore decided to withdraw the application and instead put Property 1 up for sale.
25. A private individual bought Property 1 from the Council. The new owner applied for permission to change the use of Property 1 from a non-residential education centre back to a single residential dwelling in 2023.
26. The Parish Council and another neighbour highlighted the new owner’s plans for the application were wrong as they show access over land belonging to a neighbouring property. They said the owner did not own all the land outlined in red on their application. The lower section of the plot between the road and the access footpath was owned by another neighbour.
27. The new owner therefore amended their plans, and the Council was satisfied this represented the correct position.
28. Mr X objected to the application. He raised many points. I have not repeated them all, but his objections included:
• The submitted plan is wrong as access is via a narrow footpath only.
• There is no parking.
• The application makes no reference to the previous commercial use.
• The application may not follow requirements for the sought change of use as the property was sold as a non-residential educational centre and this use should continue.
• The applicant has not considered the previous planning approval or requirements for surveys and assessments.
• The applicant has not served a party wall notice.
• The applicant has not provided drawings of the existing fixtures and fittings, ceiling voids or loft plans.
• The applicant has not made a Building Control application for the change of use.
29. The Council considered Mr X’s objections. However, it said the surveys and other requirements of the previous use of Property 1 were not needed anymore, because the applicant wanted to return the property to domestic residential use.
30. The Council said that meant any works to remove the fire doors, remove voids, and any equipment needed to convert Property 1 back into a single dwelling were not planning matters, and the applicant did not need to submit new surveys. It said any internal or external works to the party wall should be dealt with under the Party Wall Act, and were not material planning considerations.
31. The Council recognised the previous use of Property 1 resulted in loss of amenity for Mr X, in terms of noise. It considered returning Property 1 to a single family dwelling was acceptable and would resolve the concerns about the earlier loss of amenity. The Council granted permission for the change of use back to a residential dwelling in 2024.
32. Mr X complained to the Council on 17 November 2024. He said the new owner of Property 1 had not made a Building Control application after the Council granted permission to change the use back to a residential dwelling in March 2024. He said the same underlying problems of non-compliance with Building Regulations remained, and the Council did not include the details of this non-compliance in the legal pack when it sold the property in 2023, only the findings of the previous Ombudsman decision.
33. Mr X referred to the Council’s withdrawn retrospective application to change the use of Property 1 before it decided to sell it. He said the application misrepresented how long building works took and wrongly claimed Property 1 was solely owned, not jointly owned. He said it appeared no conversion works were ever carried out when the use of the property changed in 1993, 1996 and 1999.
34. Mr X complained the new owner of Property 1 made false claims about the boundary and ownership of the property and served incorrect planning notices when applying to change the use back to a residential dwelling.
35. Mr X asked Building Control to take enforcement action for the new owner to do the works needed to return Property 1 to a residential dwelling.
36. Mr X’s neighbour applied for Building Control to sign off works to change the use of Property 1 back to a residential dwelling on 18 November 2024.
37. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 20 November. It said the history of Mr X’s complaint was covered by the recent Ombudsman investigation, and there are no further actions for the Council’s Planning service or Building Control to take or re-visit. It also said the new owner recently made a Building Control application which the Council was considering, so this element of Mr X’s complaint was premature.
38. A Building Control officer met the owner of Property 1 on 12 December 2024 to discuss the works needed to comply with Regulations 5 and 6 of the Building Regulations 2010 for a material change of use. The officer noted Property 1 had installations such as an alarm system and overhead door closers on the habitable rooms. Apart from the need to meet the above requirements, they found everything appeared satisfactory. The officer advised the owner of Property 1 to contact Mr X about sound testing between the properties.
39. The owner emailed Mr X proposing an acoustic survey to determine noise levels and any necessary measures to remedy the situation. They said testing would involve access to both sides of the party wall and asked Mr X to provide access and cover half the fees.
40. Mr X declined access on the terms the owner proposed. Mr X detailed the full history of issues with the Council and remedial works he considers the Council should have completed before selling Property 1. He said he would only allow access under the provisions of the Party Wall Act and with the neighbour covering all costs.
41. With the agreement of the Council, the owner of Property 1 asked an Acoustic Consultant to design a scheme of works to be completed inside Property 1 which would reduce noise transfer across the party wall to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations for a change of use.
42. The owner sent the Acoustic Consultant’s proposals to the Council, and the Council confirmed they were acceptable.
43. The Building Control officer carried out a pre-completion inspection on 3 March 2025. They were satisfied the owner completed works to convert Property 1 to a dwelling in accordance with requirements detailed in Regulations 5 and 6 of the Building Regulations. The Council issued a completion certificate on 12 March 2025.
44. Mr X reported planning breaches to the Council on 14 June 2025. He said the new owner of Property 1 served false planning notices claiming to be the sole owner, not the joint owner, of the land. Mr X said rights of way on a jointly owned footpath were restricted in order to protect residential amenity when the property was used for commercial purposes. He said no new grant of access had been given. He also said the owner did not serve party wall notices for sound testing required under the Building Regulations.
45. The Council’s planning enforcement service replied on 16 June. It said the issue about property ownership is a technical matter about alerting other owners to the work. The Council said it can challenge such matters during an application, but it cannot be retrospectively challenged. The onus was on the applicant to be clear and transparent, but it does not affect the permission the Council granted.
46. On the right of way issue, the Council said it is not a public right of way, so it is a private civil matter between the relevant parties.
47. The Council said Building Control processes are separate from planning and would not constitute a planning breach.

My investigation

48. Mr X told me problems with Property 1 started in 1993 when its use changed. He said there was no conversion done and there was no soundproofing.
49. Mr X told me, after the recent sale, the new owner installed soundproofing boards from floor to ceiling, but not in the ceiling voids, and they did not remove the fire doors.
50. Mr X said there is also an issue regarding access. Earlier planning application documents refer to joint ownership of access. The new application says sole ownership of the land.
51. Mr X said Property 1 does not comply with Building Regulations, despite the building inspector signing off the property following the new owner’s planning application. Mr X said the key issue is there has been no noise testing across the party wall. He said this is required by Part E of the Building Regulations when there is a change of use.
52. Mr X said the owner claims to have done internal sound testing, but this was not across the party wall. He said there is noise from the fire doors day and night which resonates through the ceiling voids. The Council did not tell the owner to remove the fire doors when it granted planning permission.
53. The Council told me Property 1 was originally built as a residential dwelling. It was then used for some time as a non-residential education centre. The Council should then have sought planning permission to convert the property for use as residential accommodation to people in need of care. The Council did apply for this in 2022, but withdrew the application before selling Property 1 to a private owner.
54. The Council said it carried out noise insulation work to the ground floor wall of Property 1 in 2022, to reduce noise transfer to Mr X’s home. The work consisted of removing existing plaster to the party wall and installing noise insulation.
55. The new owner of Property 1 applied to change the use back to a single residential dwelling, which the Council granted in March 2024. The Council considers it approved the application correctly.
56. The new owner also applied for Building Control sign off on the use as a residential dwelling. Building Control issued a completion certificate in March 2025 confirming the owner completed the work in line with Building Regulations. Works included sound proofing that would not have been a requirement when Property 1 was originally built. The Council considers any issues with sound testing, insulation, and fire doors for the previous non-residential use fell away when Property 1 reverted back to a single residential dwelling.
57. The Council considers Property 1 has the necessary planning permission and Building Regulations approval for its current use as a single family dwelling.
58. The Council said Building Regulations cannot require removal of internal fire doors, and Mr X should report any noise complaints to its Environmental Protection team. The Council’s Environmental Protection team did not receive any complaints about Property 1 in 2025.
59. The Council said direct access to Property 1 is a civil matter which it cannot engage in as it no longer owns Property 1.

Analysis

60. Following our previous investigation, the Council applied for retrospective permission to change the use of Property 1 to residential care accommodation. During the application process, statutory consultees suggested further works around noise insulation and fire safety. The Council therefore decided to withdraw the application and sell Property 1 rather than completing any further works. When the new owner bought Property 1, they decided to apply to change the use back to a residential dwelling. The requirements for a change of use for a residential dwelling are different from residential care accommodation, in terms of noise insulation and fire safety. That meant works the Council may have needed to do to keep using the property for residential care accommodation were no longer required when the new owner asked to change the use back to a residential dwelling.
61. Initially, the new owner’s plans for the change of use application showed the wrong boundary of the property. However, this was corrected and the Council was satisfied the plans showed the correct position. According to comments from another neighbour, they own the access to three properties, and both Mr X and the owner of Property 1 have a right of access. Any remaining issues about rights of access is a private civil matter. The fact the new owner of Property 1 has planning permission and Building Control approval to change the use back to a residential dwelling does not grant them any additional ownership of the land or access rights.
62. In response to my draft decision, Mr X said the owner of Property 1 did not complete the correct ownership certificate and should have served correct planning notices to him. This was because the owner said they had sole ownership of the property/land. Mr X said this invalidates the application. Mr X is correct it is an offence to complete a false or misleading ownership certificate. However, I cannot say the applicant deliberately or recklessly completed a false certificate. And it is for the Council to decide whether the application is valid.
63. A purpose of the ownership certificate is to give notice to anyone who may have an interest in the land/property, so they are aware of the plans and have the chance to object or raise any relevant issues. Mr X was aware of the application and submitted objections. He therefore did not suffer any injustice. The type of ownership certificate did not materially affect the outcome in this case and would not alter the Council’s decision on whether the change of use was acceptable.
64. Mr X wanted the new owner to remove fire doors from Property 1. However, they are not a material planning consideration and not something the Council can require the owner to remove as part of the change of use application. The Council had to consider the principal of changing the use of the building, and whether residential use would be acceptable. Internal fixtures and fittings do not form part of the Council’s consideration. Likewise, the fire doors were not a requirement, or material consideration, for Building Control approval for a change of use to a residential dwelling. I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.
65. If the fire doors create excessive noise, Mr X can raise this with the Council to consider whether it is a statutory nuisance, or normal noise expected between adjoining residential properties.
66. Mr X considers Building Control should not have signed off the change of use because there was no sound testing across the party wall. On the evidence seen, Property 1 had to comply with relevant sound insulation standards for a change of use to a residential dwelling, as set out in Part E the Building Regulations (Approved Document E). Because Mr X would not allow access on the terms the owner of Property 1 suggested, they employed an acoustic consultant to design soundproofing measures to comply with the Building Regulations.
67. Approved Document E sets out necessary standards for sound insulation in new-build and converted residential buildings. It requires limiting airborne noise through floors, walls, and stairs. Where there is a change of use to a residential dwelling, the relevant figure for sound insulation is 43 decibels. In addition, the maximum figure for impact sound insulation 64db. Approved Document E gives guidance on compliance with the Building Regulations. It states Building Control bodies should exercise judgement and be satisfied an applicant has done everything reasonable to improve sound insulation. The Council was satisfied the work Mr X’s neighbour proposed and carried out met the required standard. It considered a desktop report and insultation designs from an Acoustic Consultant, and it visited the property to assess the work before signing it off. I saw no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Back to top

Final Decision

68. I found no fault in the Council’s decision-making when it granted planning permission or Building Control approval for the change of use of Property 1 to a residential dwelling.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman