Shropshire Council cleared of planning wrongdoing

The woman, known only as Mrs C, complained about the way the authority dealt with the planning applications for development near her property.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman said it could not find any fault with the actions the council took and cleared it of any wrongdoing.

The complaint was made after Mrs C said the council failed to control the size of the building (it is higher than originally approved in 2015); caused her nuisance from dust, noise and parking during the building work; failed to allow their local councillor to attend a site visit; and allowed the neighbour to install two windows overlooking her garden, even though they were not included on the plans.

But The Ombudsman said: “In 2015 the council granted planning permission for a larger garage in the grounds of a property next door to Mrs C.

“The approved drawing shows the building would be five metres high from the level of the damp-proof course (above ground level), 10 metres long and 6.5 metres wide, with a floor area of 65 square metres and an eaves level of three metres.

“The officer report said the proposed garage would not be directly visible from outside the site nor observable from the neighbouring street or neighbouring dwellings and the proposed windows would have limited impact on the outlook of neighbours and their visual amenity.

Asbestos

“Mrs C objected to the application saying it would affect access to her driveway, there would be an increase in traffic and pollution, the neighbour could use the garage for commercial purposes and there was asbestos in the existing garage.

“In 2017 a neighbour complained to the council that the garage was not being built in accordance with the approved plans and the council opened an enforcement investigation.

“The council then received a planning application for the garage being built: 5.5 metres high, 10.47 metres long, 6.69 metres wide with eaves level still at three metres. It included a first-floor level with a frosted glass window.

“Mrs C and another neighbour objected. Mrs C’s concerns included an exacerbation of already difficult parking issues, obstruction of her driveway, increased pollution, noise and disturbance during construction, loss of privacy due to overlooking from the windows, concern about commercial or residential use of the garage and the overbearing nature of the building.

“The council refused this application in August 2017 as it considered the scale of the garage to be excessive: the addition of the first floor and the first-floor window were unacceptable.

“But the council considered the principle and design of the proposal were acceptable and noted that no-one had objected to the first application where the garage had a height of five metres.”

He added: “I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the council towards Mrs C.”