Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly notify him of a planning application on a neighbouring property which prevented him from making objections, and subsequently wrongly approved two planning applications which has had significant negative impacts on his wellbeing, his farm and its visitors, the greenbelt and the wider environment. We find the Council at fault for not putting up a site notice to publicise the application, which caused no injustice, and no fault with the Council’s decisions to approve the applications.

The complaint

2. Mr X complains the Council failed to advertise and wrongly approved two planning applications for an industrial development on a site neighbouring his farm.
3. Regarding the first application in 2023 for the erection of an industrial building, he complains the Council failed to:
5. Notify him of the application when it did not send him a letter or put a notice on the site.
6. Take account of the negative impacts on him, his farm and those that visit and work there, caused by noise, dust, pollutants, and airflow obstruction created by the development.
7. Take account of the green belt, core policies in its local development plan, and wider environmental and community impacts.
4. Regarding the second application in 2024 for an amendment to the orientation of the industrial building approved in the first application, he complains the Council failed to:
5. Take account of the negative impacts caused by the reorientation of the building from that originally permitted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
9. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.
10. 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

11. The amount of information provided by Mr X and the Council was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
12. I have investigated events from September 2023 when the first planning application was made until April 2025 when Mr X complained to us.
13. It took Mr X more than 12 months to complain to us about matters that occurred before April 2024 and his complaint is therefore late. The Council’s failure to properly publicise the application to the public may have meant Mr X did not become aware of the matter until several months after it occurred. I have decided this is a good reason to exercise my discretion to investigate the late elements of the complaint.
14. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about new issues including alleged deviations from the approved plans and potential current and future breaches of planning conditions. This is because we do not usually investigate events that occur after a complaint is made to us, and the Council’s planning enforcement function has the power to investigate these matters.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Planning permission

17. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise. The Council’s local development plan is called the Wiltshire Core Strategy Plan Document.
18. Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

19. Material planning considerations do not include:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

20. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Publicity for planning applications

21. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.
22. For minor applications, councils must publicise by either:

• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.

23. As well as regulatory minimum requirements, councils must also produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the council’s policy on how it will communicate with the public when it carries out its functions.
24. The Council’s SCI states it will communicate planning applications by notifying immediate neighbours that share a common boundary with the site where it considers they may be affected by a proposal. It will also display a site notice where required by planning legislation.

The National Planning Policy Framework

25. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides guidance for councils drawing up local development plans, and is a material consideration in deciding applications.
26. Where the local development plan is silent or the relevant policies are out of date, planning applications must be decided in accordance with a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, or the Framework indicates development should be restricted.

Greenbelt

27. Some areas of land are designated as ‘green belt’ land. Green belt land is subject to enhanced planning controls, the purpose of which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the land open.
28. Government guidance says inappropriate development in green belt should not be allowed except in very special circumstances, where the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

What happened

29. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened. I have discussed relevant areas in more detail in the analysis section.
30. Mr X owns a farm (the farm). It is in an area of green belt.
31. In 2023 the Council received a planning application for a site that neighbours Mr X’s farm. The site had existing permission for two agricultural buildings that had not been built. The application was for the erection of a general purpose industrial building, a bund, an acoustic fence and associated access and landscaping. The building would be used for an industrial business.
32. The Council notified neighbours of the site of the planning application by writing to them. The neighbours had an opportunity to comment on the application. It also listed the application on its website. However, the Council did not write to Mr X nor put a site notice up. Mr X did not become aware of the planning application and so did not submit any comments.
33. The Council prepared an officer report about the application. It identified key issues including the impacts on the green belt, heritage, neighbour amenity, ecology, drainage and flood risk.
34. The officer report recommended the application be approved subject to conditions. The Council approved planning permission with the conditions in early 2024.
35. Mr X learnt of the planning permission and first contacted the Council with his concerns in April 2024.
36. He made a formal complaint to the Council in June. He complained about its failure to notify him of the application. He objected to the planning permission based on ecological, wildlife, green belt, and social and community impacts, and risks to his farm.
37. In early July the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It agreed it should have displayed a site notice at the application site and apologised for failing to do so. It explained it did not notify Mr X in writing because its mapping system showed the part of the farm’s land that neighboured the site had no record of the farm’s postal address.
38. The Council addressed the other elements of Mr X’s complaint in its response. It concluded it had looked at all relevant elements when considering the application. It also explained its view it would have approved the application had Mr X’s objections been raised during the application process.
39. Later in the summer there was a second application. This was for a non-material amendment to the original plan. A non-material amendment may be applied for to approve a minor change to the planning permission. The application was to rotate the planned building. Mr X commented on the application and objected to it. He said the rotation would direct increased noise at parts of his farm. Other people also commented to object to the application due to various concerns about the impact on the farm.
40. The Council prepared an officer report about the application. It discussed matters including Mr X’s complaint about the first application and the objections received. The Council approved the application as a non-material amendment in November.
41. Mr X raised a stage two complaint in December. He reemphasized his original complaint. He added further concerns including impacts on ditches, hedges, water courses, wildlife, volunteers and visiting community groups, airflow, and his crops. Mr X also explained why he disagreed with the way the Council had considered the NPPF and its own local development plan.
42. He sent further concerns to the Council in early 2025.
43. The Council provided a final complaint response in March. It expanded on its stage one response with further information from an ecologist, its planning team, and with reference to the additional considerations that had been carried out for the second application. It concluded there was no evidence of fault that caused personal injustice to Mr X. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in April.
44. Analysis
45. I have addressed the elements of the Mr X’s complaint in turn below.

a) Notification of the planning application by letter and a site notice

46. The Council accepted it should have put up a site notice to publicise the application in its complaint response and apologised.
47. I agree that it should have put up a notice in line with the regulations, and therefore find it at fault for failing to do so.
48. To decide on the injustice the fault caused, I have considered whether Mr X would have become aware of the application had a notice been put up. I note the site entrance is approximately 650 metres from the entrance to the farm, not on the same road, and on a B classified road with no footpath in the immediate vicinity.
49. Due to these reasons I have decided I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether Mr X would have seen become aware of a site notice. I therefore cannot find the Council’s fault caused Mr X injustice in the form of a loss of opportunity to comment on the application. For this reason I do not find the Council’s fault caused injustice.
50. The Council explained its process for identifying immediate neighbours to be notified by letter. It uses a mapping system provided by a prominent mapping agency that uses data provided from a widely accepted address database. It said the part of the farm next to the site was on a piece of land with a general title that did not directly link it to the name or address of the farm. It explained the commercial address for the farm was 450m from the application site, on a different piece of land, and it was therefore not a notifiable neighbour.
51. I acknowledge the Council could have done more to identify Mr X’s commercial address by linking it to the neighbouring land. However, I find the Council’s process for identifying the addresses of immediate neighbours is in line with its SCI and common practice and was therefore appropriate. For this reason I do not find the Council at fault for not notifying Mr X by letter.

b) The Council wrongly approved the first application when it did not take account of the negative impacts on the farm.

52. I have decided Mr X did not lose the opportunity of objecting to the application under a) above.
53. The officer’s report accompanying the application directly addressed neighbouring amenity in general, including noise pollution and the visual impact of the development. While it did not specifically mention Mr X’s farm, I am satisfied it considered the topic in sufficient detail. The Council was not at fault in this regard.

c) The Council wrongly approved the first application when it did not take account of matters including the green belt, core policies in its local development plan, and wider environmental and community impacts.

54. The first application was considered by a planning case officer who wrote a report that included:

• Relevant background including existing permissions for unbuilt structures on the site.
• Principle of development and impact on the openness of the green belt.
• Impact on the street scene/landscape.
• Heritage impacts.
• Neighbour amenity.
• Highways safety.
• Ecology.
• Drainage and flood risk.
• Consideration of the NPPF and various core policies in the local development plan.
• Various consultation responses in support of and objection to the application.
• A list of planning conditions accepted by the applicant

55. I have considered the content of the report, and the correspondence between Mr X and the Council about the matters relevant to this part of the complaint. I find the evidence shows the Council took account of all relevant matters. Because of this, I find no fault in how the Council made its decision, and I cannot question the outcome.

d) The Council’s decision to approve the second application.

56. The second application was considered by a planning case officer who wrote a report that included:

• An explanation of the proposed reorientation of the building.
• A summary of what was approved by the first application.
• A summary of Mr X’s complaint about the first application, and the Council’s response.
• An explanation of non-material amendment applications.
• A summary of the letters of objection received.
• That the refusal of the application would still allow the applicant to build as per the approved first application.
• Analysis of the effect of the reorientation on the findings of the noise report submitted for the first application.

57. I find the report shows it took account of all relevant matters when it considered the application. Because of this, I find no fault in how the Council made its decision, and I cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Decision

58. For the reasons laid out in the analysis section, I find fault with the way the Council publicised the first application, but I find the fault caused no injustice to Mr X. I find no fault with the way Council decided to approve the first and second applications and I therefore cannot question the outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman