Council ordered to pay compensation over supported living accommodation which did not have correct permission

Shropshire Council has been ordered to pay compensation to the neighbour of a property that it wrongly allowed to be used as supported living accommodation.

An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found the authority’s mistake caused “distress” to the couple in the adjoining house, who had to contend with excessive noise over a period of five years before the error was realised.

The ombudsman told the council to pay £800 compensation to the neighbour, and review its policies to ensure it checks the correct planning permission is in place before leasing out properties.

The council says it has acted on the recommendations.

A report from the ombudsman says the property had been used as a non-residential education centre for adults with learning disabilities since 1999.

In 2016, the council leased the building to a housing association for it to be used for residential placements for people in need of full-time care.

The housing association refurbished the property and installed fire doors and an alarm system before using it for supported living.

The council’s adult social care department commissioned the supported living placements and had full nomination rights.

The report says the next-door neighbour, named as Mr B, complained to the housing association in 2017 about noise from the property, and work was undertaken on the building to mitigate this.

Mr B complained again in 2018 but was told by the housing association that it would not install sound-proofing measures.

A tenant moved out of the property in May 2021 and Mr B again spoke to the housing association about the noise. This time he was told a schedule of works would be drawn up.

But no work was undertaken, as the council placed a new resident in the property that August without telling the housing association.

The neighbour complained again to the housing association and later asked the council to consider whether there was a noise nuisance.

The report says: “He said doors banging and noise made by the tenant and his carers disturbed him and his wife. He explained his wife was having to live elsewhere because of the noise.”

The housing association upheld the complaint and accepted the house was “unsuitable for the current tenant”. The council said there was no statutory noise nuisance, but accepted there was “excessive noise” and promised to install some sound-proofing.

The report says in December 2021, Mr B asked the council about the change of use – and it was only then that the authority realised it had never sought permission.

A retrospective application was lodged, and building control officers said if they had known about the change of use they would have raised concerns over the building being a “higher fire risk premises”.

The council withdrew the planning application in November 2022 and told Mr B it would move the tenant out that month and sell the property. The housing association’s lease ended on December 1.

The report says the council breached planning control by leasing the property to be used for a purpose it did not have permission for, and was also at fault for moving a new tenant in without telling the housing association.

It says: “This meant the housing association did not have the opportunity to consider whether the property was suitable for the tenant or complete planned work to increase the sound insulation between the two properties.”

The ombudsman said the council should pay Mr B £500 for the distress the ordeal caused him and his wife, plus £300 for the time and trouble he went to chasing the council to resolve the matter.

A Shropshire Council spokesperson said the authority “accepted that there was an error” in not applying for the change of use.

They said: “Many of the issues raised appear to have been as a result of the council not having a central corporate landlord function whereby such projects would have been led by property experts.

“The council has re-organised itself to implement the corporate landlord model across its portfolio of property and therefore this situation will not be repeated moving forward.

“This means that the council does now have a team which checks that the properties it leases have the correct planning permissions for their proposed use and meet the relevant building regulations.”