Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to advertise and properly consider a planning application for a development close to his property. There is no fault in how the Council considered or publicised the application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. Mr B complained the Council:
• failed to properly advertise the application;
• wrongly said the application would not add to the existing use for the site;
• based its decision to grant permission on wrong information;
• failed to consider how the development would impact on neighbouring properties; and
• following the grant of planning permission, failed to consider his request for an acoustic fence and planting to reduce the impact of the development.
2. Mr B says the Council’s failures have caused him disillusionment and anger as he is now faced with more intensive use of a site close to his property which is impacting on his mental health. Mr B says he is suffering parking issues and noise from the site.

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 Mr 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 Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr 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

What should have happened

7. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 sets out the publicity requirements for planning applications. For this type of application it says the Council must display a site notice or serve the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier.
8. The Council’s statement of community involvement sets out the Council’s requirements for publicity on planning applications. For this type of application it says the Council will send consultation letters to those properties which share a common boundary with the application site.
9. A change of use of land or buildings requires planning permission if it constitutes a material change of use. There is no statutory definition of ‘material change of use’; however, it is linked to the significance of a change and the resulting impact on the use of land and buildings. Whether a material change of use has taken place is a matter of fact and degree and this will be determined on the individual merits of a case.

What happened

10. Mr B lives close to a site which has been in use as a football pitch for some time. The Council received a planning application to replace the grassed football pitch with an artificial grass football pitch. The Council sent consultation letters to nearby properties and posted a site notice. The Council did not receive any objections and granted planning permission.

Analysis

11. Mr B says the Council failed to properly advertise the planning application. I set out in paragraph 7 the statutory requirement for publicity for planning applications of this type. The Council’s statement of community involvement, referred to in paragraph 8, reflects the statutory requirement. In this case it is clear the Council sent consultation letters to various properties which extended further than those sharing a boundary with the site and placed a site notice. The Council therefore went further than the statutory requirement and its policy in publicising the application. I am therefore satisfied the Council properly advertised the planning application.
12. Mr B says the report for the planning application wrongly said the development would not add to the existing use for the site. Mr B says in granting planning permission the Council failed to consider the fact the application will allow use of the site every day throughout the year when it was previously used mainly on Saturdays, Sundays and the occasional evening. Before the applicant put in this planning application though the site had permission for use for football matches with no restriction on the number and timings of events throughout the year. This means there were no restrictions on how often the site could be used. I appreciate changing the site from natural grass to artificial grass will likely increase the opportunities to use the site throughout the year but it is nevertheless a relevant consideration there were no restrictions on use of the site before the applicant put in this planning application.
13. In any event, I am satisfied the report for the planning application made clear the development would allow increased use throughout the playing season. As I said in paragraph 9, the decision about whether intensification of use of a site forms a material change of use is a matter of fact and degree and is therefore down to the judgement of the officer considering the case. In this case I am satisfied the officer noted in the report his view the development would not result in a change of use of the site. In reaching that view the report records the officer’s view the development will not significantly increase the level of activity above what is currently on site or allowed on site. The report also refers to the existing usage of the site being a maximum of 80 users at peak times with the proposed development anticipating a maximum of 85 users at peak times. I am therefore satisfied the Council properly considered whether the proposed development formed a change of use when making a decision on the application. As the Council noted the development would likely allow increased use throughout the playing season I cannot say the Council failed to take that into account when granting planning permission. As I said in paragraph 3, it is not my role to comment on the merits of a decision that has been reached without fault. I have found no evidence of fault here.
14. Mr B says the Council based its decision to grant planning permission on wrong information. Mr B says the Council wrongly said there was significant screening between the site and neighbouring properties when that is not the case, particularly for residents on his street. Having considered the report for the application I note it records there is extensive vegetation screening the site from view. Mr B has provided some photographs from his property which show views of the football pitch from his first floor windows. The photographs provided by Mr B, and the information presented by the applicant, show screening on site though. I therefore do not consider the description used by the Council inaccurate. As I have made clear, it was also relevant for the Council to consider the fact the site was already in use as a football pitch with existing levels of screening.
15. Mr B says the Council failed to consider the impact the development would have on neighbouring residents. Having considered the report for the application I am satisfied this addressed the impact the development would have on surrounding properties. The report recorded the officer’s view that given the existing use of the site, existing screening and separation distances between the site and the nearest properties the development would not have a significantly adverse impact on neighbours. The report also recorded why the Council considered the impact of the proposed lighting to be acceptable, referring to the lights being orientated towards the centre and away from neighbouring properties. The report also referred to the fact highways had not raised any concerns about the impact of use of the site. The Council also imposed a condition on the permission to restrict the hours the floodlighting could be used. Given all of that I could not say the Council failed to consider the impact the development would have on neighbouring properties. Clearly Mr B takes a different view and I understand his concern the site can be used more often and more intensively. However, as the Council has properly assessed the application and how it will impact on neighbouring residents there are no grounds on which I could criticise it.
16. Mr B says following the grant of planning permission the Council failed to consider his request for acoustic screening and planting to soften the visual impact of the site and reduce noise. I understand why Mr B would like the Council to require additional screening. However, the Council has no power to require the applicant to provide further screening or acoustic measures. The Council could only have imposed those as part of conditions on the planning permission. In this case I am satisfied the report set out why the Council did not consider further screening necessary, referring to the fact the site already had some screening and was in use as a football pitch. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman