NEIGHBOURS AS PARTIES TO BUILDING CASES things that the building project would not have required dispensation pursuant to the previous rules, so there were no grounds for assuming that it was unusual with regard to light conditions and the degree to which neighbouring properties would be overlooked. The light conditions and the degree to which the holiday home would be overlooked would therefore not be significantly affected compared to what was to be expected in the area. The area had, among other things, been designated for hotel purposes in a town planning bylaw (corresponding to a local plan). By contrast, the Ombudsman did regard the owners of the holiday home as parties to the case. He emphasised that the assessment of whether the light conditions would be satisfactory and the holiday home overlooked to a significant degree must be made on the basis of an objective consideration of these issues, irrespective of what expectations the neighbours might have. The Ombudsman took for his basis that the holiday home would be overlooked as a result of the build – not only from windows on the second floor, but also an external staircase with a landing. Due to the short distance between the properties, the nuisance caused by the holiday home being overlooked must be regarded as so significant that the owners were parties to the case. WHEN THE RESULT IS KNOWN IN ADVANCE It is not only the absence of party status which may cause a local authority to fail to hear a neighbour as a party to a building case. It may also be because the authority does not believe the neighbours will be able to influence the decision on planning permission because the builder is entitled to permission. This issue is considered in Case No. 2011 4-1, published on the website of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, www.ombudsmanden.dk. In this case, the local authority took the view that the residents of a neighbouring property were not parties to a planning permission case because the building project did not require dispensation. By contrast, the Regional State Administration as the appeal authority recognised the neighbours as parties to the case, but nonetheless found that they should not have been heard. The property was in an area covered by an old town planning bylaw. The local authority was of the opinion that the building project complied with the bylaw and that therefore it could not refuse to grant planning permission. On this basis, the Regional State Administration decided that the conditions for hearing the parties pursuant to the Public Administration Act were not met in relation to the provisions of the Building Act. In this connection, the Regional State Administration pointed out that, pursuant to the Building Act, it could only consider the part of the case relating to building legislation, including the planning permission, but not issues relating to the town planning bylaw. 45