Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application, failed to follow the right process, failed to word a planning condition properly and showed bias when approving the planning application. There is no fault in how the Council considered the planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained about the way the Council considered a planning application. Mrs B complained the Council:
• failed to consider the impact the development would have on neighbouring properties;
• failed to consider that what was being granted was not what the football club required;
• unreasonably made a decision without first requiring the football club to pursue a variation to its lease;
• failed to ensure the condition imposed relating to use of floodlighting reflected an accurate hibernation period for bats; and
• showed bias when approving the planning application.
2. Mrs B says the grant of planning permission has caused her significant distress, has led to a greater impact on her amenity and has impacted on her mental health and well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mrs B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
4. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
• Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mrs B lives adjacent to a sportsground which is used for various football matches and is also available for public use. The Council owns the site and rents it to the football club. The football club applied for installation of floodlights, stands and the erection of a fence to allow the men’s senior team to progress to the next tier. The Council’s development management committee considered the application and refused it due to concerns about the impact on neighbouring residents, the loss of recreational opportunities from the site and due to concerns about the impact on the appearance and character of the area. The application was therefore referred to the spatial planning committee for final decision. The spatial planning committee approved the application subject to conditions. The applicant subsequently applied for permission to amend two of the conditions relating to times the floodlights could be used and the height of the fence. When the Council did not determine that application the applicant appealed. The Planning Inspectorate granted the appeal.

Analysis

7. Mrs B says the Council, when granting planning permission, failed to properly consider the impact on neighbouring properties. I have considered the report for the spatial planning committee which granted planning permission for the development. That satisfies me the Council properly considered how the development would impact on neighbouring properties. I say that because the report set out the various objections received from local residents, the consultation responses from Council departments in relation to those issues and went on to discuss how the development would impact on neighbouring properties. In addition to that, Members of the spatial planning committee visited the site before considering the application and could therefore understand for themselves the relationship of the site to surrounding properties. The minutes from the meeting show Members discussed the concerns residents had raised about the impact on neighbours. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the Council should have granted planning permission. The Ombudsman’s role is to decide whether there is fault in how the Council granted planning permission. I have found no fault here and I will set out in the next few paragraphs the specific issues in relation to the impact on neighbouring properties.
8. For the issue of noise, it is clear Mrs B believes the development proposed will allow more extensive use of the site which will impact on noise to neighbouring properties. As I said in the previous paragraph, the objections received were set out in the report. That included concerns about the impact of noise and greater usage of the site. The report also recorded the environmental health officer’s response to consultation which included comments about previous noise complaints and environmental health’s view that intensification of activity would likely result in further complaints. The report went on to discuss residents’ concerns and recorded the officer’s view that the impact any additional noise would have on neighbouring properties was acceptable in planning terms. In reaching that view the officer referred to the likely use of the site, the fact there had been no statutory noise nuisance previously identified from the site and the fact the club was working with the Council’s environmental health team to put in place management measures to address noise. In light of all of that the officer was satisfied the development would not have an unacceptable impact on noise to neighbouring properties. The impact of noise and antisocial behaviour were also matters Members discussed during the spatial planning committee meeting as that is reflected in the minutes. I recognise Mrs B is likely to strongly disagree with the view the Council has taken about the impact of the development on noise and anti social behaviour to surrounding properties. However, as I said in paragraph 3, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of a view reached without fault. I have found no evidence of fault here.
9. In relation to light pollution issues, I am against satisfied the report set out residents’ concerns about the impact of light from the floodlights on their properties. The report also recorded the comments from environmental health about the proposed lighting scheme which it was satisfied would meet the requirements of guidance and not result in light nuisance to neighbouring properties. The report went on to discuss light pollution and recorded the officer’s view as to why the impact was considered acceptable in planning terms, again referring to the proposal meeting with the guidance and achieving Lux levels at surrounding residential windows at acceptable levels. The report also referred to the lighting report one of the objectors had submitted and noted the specialist departments within the Council were nevertheless satisfied the lighting proposed would not contravene the guidelines or result in a statutory light nuisance. I am satisfied the Council acted though to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents by imposing a condition on the permission to control the times when the football club could use the floodlighting, although the Planning Inspectorate later extended that. The fact the Council imposed a condition though satisfies me it properly considered the impact the development would have on neighbouring properties when it granted planning permission. As with the issue of noise, I recognise Mrs B is likely to strongly disagree with the judgement reached here. However, it is not my role to comment on the merits of that judgement given it has been reached without fault.
10. In reaching that view I am aware Mrs B is concerned the permission allows floodlights within 15 metres of her property when Football Association guidance says floodlights should not be within 20 metres. The report did not specifically discuss that issue. However, the report listed the objections which included concerns about the proximity of lighting and stands to properties ignoring Football Association guidelines. The report went on to record the relationship of the various structures on the site to surrounding properties and, in particular, the fact one floodlight is around 15 metres from a neighbouring property. Given all of that I could not say the Council failed to consider the proximity of lighting to neighbouring properties when it granted planning permission. The Council considered the impact of lighting acceptable in planning terms and there are no grounds on which I could criticise it.
11. For highways issues, I am again satisfied the report set out concerns residents raised about the impact on the highway network of more people using the site as well as concerns about parking. The report also included the response from highways, which raised no objection. The report recorded highways had advised the site had good pedestrian, cycle and public transport access and as the proposal would create ancillary facilities to support the principal use of the site highways considered the proposals were unlikely to attract significantly more visitors to the site to justify a refusal on transport grounds. The report went on to discuss the transport issues and recorded the officer’s view that floodlighting, stands and a fence would, in themselves, not result in a significant increase in footfall to the site, noting the club’s intention to seek an alternative site should it later progress to the next football tier. The report therefore concluded the development would not result in such an increase in footfall that it would result in a significant highway safety issue. I am satisfied the Council also imposed a condition on the permission to require the applicant to produce a travel plan to manage any potential overspill and avoid unsafe on street parking. While the Council has clearly reached a decision with which Mrs B strongly disagrees I am satisfied it reached that decision properly and I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
12. Mrs B is also concerned about the fencing proposed for the site which she says will divide the public open space, prevent access and create an eyesore. Again though, I am satisfied the report for the application referred to the positioning of the fence, its appearance and the impact the fence would have on access to the site. The report recorded the officer’s view use of mesh fencing would reduce the impact. The report also referred to the impact of locked gates, recording those gates would only be locked during league matches. The report recorded the officer’s view that as access across the pitch would generally be restricted during match times the fence would not have a significantly greater impact on accessibility than the current arrangement. I am satisfied the Council imposed a condition though to prevent the locking of the gates except during league football matches. So, while I recognise Mrs B still has concerns about the impact of fencing I am satisfied the Council did not share those concerns. Indeed, Members imposed an alternative condition which reduced the height of the fence, precisely to address the impact on the surrounding area, although the Planning Inspectorate overturned that restriction. Given the content of the report and the condition imposed on the permission I am satisfied the Council properly considered how the fence would impact on the surrounding area and on public access to the site. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
13. Mrs B says the Council failed to consider that what it had granted permission for was not what the football club required. Mrs B is referring here to the restrictions on times when floodlights can be used as well as the condition relating to the height of the fence. While I understand Mrs B’s concern, the issue for committee to decide was whether the proposal was acceptable in planning terms. Whether the proposal as presented or approved then met the requirements of the football club was not a material planning consideration. So, they were not relevant issues for the Council to take into account. I therefore cannot criticise it.
14. I appreciate Mrs B’s view is there were alternative options available to the club where it could have developed another site which is more appropriate than the one adjacent to her property. I am satisfied that issue was referred to in the report in the section detailing the objections received. The report also explained the applicant did not intend to seek any further development of the site and that if the football club progressed to the next tier up it would be seeking an alternative site. In any event, the Council’s responsibility was to determine the application in front of it. Whether there were alternative sites the football club could use was not an issue for the Council to consider. Consequently, I have no grounds to criticise it.
15. Mrs B says the Council should not have reached a decision on the planning application without first requiring the football club to pursue a variation to its lease. I understand why Mrs B would have wanted the licence application pursued first. However, there would be no reason for the Council to consider amendments to the licence application unless the holder of the licence had secured planning permission which required a change to the licence. I therefore see no fault in the Council’s approach of considering the planning application first before looking to see whether any changes to the licence agreement were necessary. In any event, as I understand it the grant of planning permission has not led to the need to make any changes to the lease.
16. Mrs B says the Council failed to ensure the condition imposed on the permission restricting the use of floodlights during the bats hibernation period was accurate. I am satisfied the minutes of the meeting record the accurate dates required for the condition, which was then changed before planning permission was granted. I have therefore found no fault by the Council.
17. Mrs B says the Council showed bias when approving the planning application. Mrs B says as the football club manages the site for the Council it saves money if it remains on site and the planning officer wrongly influenced committee to approve the application. I have considered the report for the application and the minutes of the meeting at which it was approved. I have found no evidence of bias in either the report or the minutes of the meeting. The report set out the various issues in relation to the site and recorded the planning officer’s view in relation to those various issues, which is what I would expect it to do. There is no evidence from the minutes of the meeting to suggest officers directed committee to approve the application. Clearly officers supported the application which is why it was recommended for approval. Setting out the reasons for approval is not evidence of bias. I am satisfied though Members discussed the proposed development at length before reaching a decision. Given committee amended one of the conditions imposed on the permission to reduce the height of the fence, despite the officer recommendation, I am satisfied they were not directed to approve the application. If they had not felt able to make a contrary decision they would likely not have amended the condition. As there is no evidence of bias in how the Council considered the application I have no grounds to criticise it.
18. In reaching that view I am aware Mrs B is concerned about committee being told the applicant could appeal the decision which would potentially prevent the Council imposing conditions to control the development. I am satisfied that was a matter raised by the applicant, rather than officers. In any event, the likelihood of an appeal and the potential impact on the Council if that appeal were upheld are relevant matters for the Council to take into account.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman