Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Graphical | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Environment and waste : : Environment and waste archive 2005 to date : : South Cambridgeshire District Council (05B05334)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

South Cambridgeshire District Council (05B05334)

Planning applications & Environmental health  Maladministration causing injustice

19 March 2007

When granting planning permission for new housing, South Cambridgeshire District Council failed to consider properly the possible impact of noise from an existing manufacturing business. In his report, the Ombudsman finds that the Council’s failure caused the business considerable trouble and legal expense in trying to establish to what extent noise had been taken into account by the Council, and whether changes to the new development might have been secured if a noise survey had been undertaken at the time. He said the final extent of the injustice could not be assessed until a noise survey had been completed, but recommended that Council to pay the business £5,000 towards its legal expenses in the meantime.

A manufacturing business (called ‘The Factory’ in the report for legal reasons) complained about the way the Council handled a planning application for residential development near its premises. It alleged that the Council failed to consider the relevant Government guidance on noise, failed to undertake a noise survey, failed to consider the effect existing noise would have on the development and failed to act to protect that development from noise.

The Ombudsman considers there was fault in the way in which the Council dealt with the planning application. In particular, the Council misunderstood the relevance of the Government’s Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG24), failed to consider how noise from The Factory would impact on the new properties, and failed to consider its policies on noise.

The Ombudsman concludes that the maladministration identified created some uncertainty for The Factory about how noise was taken into account when the application was considered. He believes that The Factory has been caused an injustice: it had taken considerable time and trouble to try to establish what had been taken into account, and incurred the expense of legal representation. He considers that it is left not knowing whether changes to the scheme would have been secured had a noise survey been carried out at the time and, if it had, whether this would have avoided a noise complaint it has received from an occupier of one of the new houses. He does not consider that the final level of injustice to The Factory can be established until the noise survey is concluded.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council should extend an intended noise survey to include both the new houses nearest The Factory. It should then inform the Ombudsman of the outcome of the survey so he can consider whether any further remedy is necessary. In addition, it should contribute £5,000 towards the legal costs incurred by The Factory in pursuing the complaint.

Officers have indicated their willingness to include in their noise survey the two new houses nearest The Factory.

Date Updated: 11/02/09