Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a 15-metre-tall post and net structure on the cricket pitch near his home. Both the Planning Officer and Committee followed and considered the relevant legislation and the objections received before deciding to approve the application. Without fault in the process, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council failed to adequately publicise a planning application, denying him the opportunity to object to the proposal.
2. He wants the structure removed and the planning process repeated. Alternatively, he wants a Councillor or Officer to visit his home to view the structure before confirming to him in person that it is not a problem.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information in Mr X’s complaint form and the Council’s response. I have also considered the original planning application, the Planning Officer’s report, Committee minutes and decision notice.
5. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
7. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. The impact of a proposal on a person’s view is not a material planning consideration.
8. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
9. A council planning officer will normally visit the application site and write a report assessing the proposed development. The report will refer to relevant planning policies and the planning history of the site; summarise peoples’ comments; and consider the main planning issues for deciding the application. The assessment often involves the planning officer in balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposed development. The report usually ends with a recommendation to grant or refuse planning permission.
10. A senior planning officer will consider most reports, but some go to the council’s planning committee for councillors to decide the application. The senior officer (or councillors at committee) may disagree with the case officer’s recommendation because it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any material consideration when deciding a planning application. Development usually gets planning permission if the council considers it is in line with planning policy and finds no planning reason(s) of enough weight to justify a refusal.
11. Planning authorities must publicise planning applications for minor development by posting a site notice or by notifying neighbours by letter. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement says it will place a site notice near the application site and/or write to occupiers of properties sharing a boundary with the application site.

The Application Process

12. The Council received a planning application for 8 posts to support a 15-metre-high, mesh fence to run for 110 metres at a cricket club close to Mr X’s home.
13. It wrote to the occupiers of the houses which share a boundary with the application site. It says it also placed a site notice at the entrance of the housing estate where Mr X lives, which is also on the boundary of the application site. Mr X’ home does not share a boundary with the application site.
14. The Council received several objections from the residents who share a boundary with the site. The objections include:
• Loss of light
• Overbearing
• Impact on biodiversity; and
• Safety.
15. The Case Officer prepared a report and a Councillor asked for the application to be referred to the Council’s Plans Committee for a decision.
16. The agenda for the Plans Committee meeting was published before the meeting was held. A resident and Councillor spoke in objection at the meeting. The Committee considered the Case Officer’s report. This included details of the objections received and the reasons why, in the Case Officer’s opinion, the proposal overcame the objections.
17. The Case Officer recommended the application be approved subject to certain conditions. Following a discussion on the proposal the committee voted to agree with the recommendation and approved the application.

Assessment

18. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. The Ombudsman must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
19. Mr X says the site notice was camouflaged and, because of this he was denied an opportunity to object to the application. However, the law says the Council must either write directly to those which share a boundary with the application site or erect a site notice. In this case the Council has done both. By writing to those whose properties share a boundary with the application site the Council has discharged its responsibilities under planning law.
20. The Planning Officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case, the objections received and why the Officer has made their recommendation. The Officer acknowledged the proposal will have a negative impact residents’ amenity. However, she also considered the proposal would aid in the retention of an existing well used sports facility which would be enhanced and made more resilient for the future. She noted the proposal is supported by national guidance on the importance of greenspace and sports facilities for health and wellbeing.
21. The Case Officer also confirmed the fencing will remove a strong safety concern and allow for the creation of safer public and private areas for residents to enjoy. Having considered the balance between the impact of the proposal in residential amenity and the mitigating factors in terms of existing use and guidance, she recommended that conditional planning permission be granted.
22. Having considered all relevant information and followed the correct procedure this is a professional judgement the officer is entitled to make.
23. I understand Mr X wanted the opportunity to suggest alternative solutions to the proposed tall posts and net. However, the law does not require a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into consultation with those who object to planning applications. LPAs are required to publicise the applications it receives according to current planning legislation and its own Statement of Community Involvement. The Council has met this obligation as stated in paragraph 19 above. It is required to consider any objections based on material planning considerations that it receives. However, it is for the decision maker to decide the weight given to any particular objection.
24. In this case the Council correctly publicised the application. It then considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision. While Mr X may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I will not investigate this complaint. I have not seen evidence of fault in the process leading to the Council’s decision to approve the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman