Summary: We do not find fault in how the Council considered and approved a planning application for major development close to Ms Y’s house. The Council undertook public consultation in line with the statutory requirements and the officer report contained sufficient analysis of the impact to Ms Y and others.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Ms Y, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for the extension of a nearby solar farm, which she says will have a negative impact on her property and the enjoyment of her home.
2. In particular, Ms Y says the Council failed to notify her of the application and did not consider the impact on her property when it assessed the proposal.

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)
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. During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Ms Y and considered any information she provided, including photographs and videos showing the outlook from her property to the site complained about.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response alongside the planning documents available on the Council’s website.
7. I issued my provisional findings in a draft decision statement and invited comments from Ms Y and the Council which I considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Brief background information

8. Ms Y lives close to a solar farm built in 2014. In early 2020 the Council received an application seeking planning permission to significantly extend the farm. Ms Y and others objected because of the impact on nearby houses and the detriment to local wildlife. The Council considered the application and granted planning permission in late 2020. Ms Y complained to the LGSCO about alleged fault in the planning process.

Public consultation

9. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. Article 15 of the ‘Development Management Procedure Order’ sets out the minimum statutory requirements. Applications for major developments, such as the one Ms Y complains about, require consultation to be undertaken via site notice or neighbour letters as well as advertisement in a newspaper.
10. Ms Y says she was not informed about the proposal due to a lack of consultation. I asked the Council to provide evidence of the consultation undertaken for the application complained about. The Council has provided the following information:
• Evidence of its database showing a consultation letter to Ms Y’s address was printed on 20 April 2020 with a response deadline of 11 May 2020
• Confirmation that the Council produced a site notice on 9 April 2020. The Council says notices were placed on two gate posts near to the site.
• Confirmation that the Council produced a press advert on 9 April 2020 which was published in a local newspaper on 30 April 2020.
• Ms Y made comments objecting to the planning application on 3 May 2020
11. I am satisfied the Council’s public consultation met the statutory requirements for the planning application in question and I therefore find no fault. Furthermore, even if we did find evidence of fault, there is no injustice to Ms Y because she submitted her comments to the application before the deadline.

Impact on Ms Y’s property

12. In summary, Ms Y submitted the following objections to the application:
• The lane outside her house is narrow and single-track. It is not suitable for development traffic and caused danger during the previous development in 2014.
• There is wildlife present on the land. The animals will suffer as a result of the development.
• Ms Y owns two properties near to the site and she suspects the value of both houses will significantly reduce due to the proximity and size of the site.
• The views from Ms Y’s properties will be affected. Ms Y’s house currently looks out over fields of sheep and cattle. This will be replaced by solar panels.
13. Ms Y complained to the LGSCO because she felt the Council overlooked her concerns when determining the application. Ms Y says there was fault in the planning process because the officer report did not refer to her properties and failed to deal with her objections about loss of views and the impact of development traffic. Ms Y says the report referred to the impact on other nearby houses and as a result the Council has applied planning conditions for screening to mitigate the impact on those properties. Ms Y says that no such screening has been proposed for the part of the site closest to her houses.
14. The relevant parts of the officer report say:
• The site is very flat and will sit within existing field boundaries and internal hedgerows which will be added to with the planting of native trees and hedgerow plans. The hedgerows will be managed and retained during the development to provide screening and to prevent overshadowing. With the strengthening of existing hedgerows and landscape management, the Council considers there will be no significant visual impact or harm to the character of the area.
• There may be some negative visual impact in the immediate area and through hedgerows which are less strong, or not in leaf, but on balance the impact is not to such an extent to outweigh the benefits of renewable energy.
• The application includes a landscape and visual appraisal report which provide a “robust and comprehensive analysis”
• The Council considers there will be no significant impact to the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers. The separation and intervening vegetation between the site and nearby properties will ensure there is no “visual distraction”.
• After consulting with the highways department, the Council is satisfied there is capacity for the movement of HGVs (Heavy Goods Vehicle) along the routes subject to compliance with the Construction Traffic Management Plan and the avoidance of deliveries outside peak hours.
15. The Council granted planning permission and applied the following conditions, which are relevant to Ms Y’s complaint:
• The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan to ensure that additional planting occurs around and within the site and that a satisfactory landscaping scheme is implemented
• All landscaping and planting shall be undertaken no later than the end of the first planting season following the installation/erection of the first solar panel. All planting shall be protected, maintained and retained thereafter during the lifetime of the development, dead or dying plants/trees shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.
• No hedges shall be damaged or destroyed and no trees shall be felled during construction without prior permission of the local planning authority.

Was there a failure by the Council to consider the impact on Ms Y?

16. It is not for the LGSCO to say whether development is acceptable. Instead, we look at the process followed by the Council when making planning decisions to decide whether any procedural fault in the process calls into question any planning decisions the authority makes. If we find evidence of procedural fault, we will assess whether the fault had any impact on the complainant. We call this injustice. Only when we find fault causing injustice will we ask the Council to take remedial action.
17. I have not found fault in Ms Y’s complaint about the consultation process for the reasons explained in the earlier part of this statement. In this section I will consider whether the Council properly assessed the impact on Ms Y and her property before it granted planning permission.
18. Ms Y is correct to point out that the officer report did not specifically refer to her properties, despite naming other nearby houses and describing the impact on those residents. However, after having read the report in full and considering the landscape plan, I am satisfied the Council had regard to the impact on Ms Y before making its decision.
19. Although the officer does not name Ms Y’s property, the report considers the views from a road adjacent to Ms Y’s house. The landscape and visual appraisal contain photographs taken from various viewpoints into the site. One of the photographs shows Ms Y’s property behind the field. It is clear from the report that the officer had regard to this document and so it follows that they would have been aware of the relationship between Ms Y’s house and the site. The Council has also confirmed the officer visited the site on several occasions to verify the information contained within the applicant’s visual appraisal.
20. I appreciate Ms Y has concerns about the loss of value to her house and the reduction in the quality of the views from her properties. However, neither of these are material planning considerations so I would not expect the Council to give any significant weight to these matters when making its decision.
21. The Council has advised the applicant’s landscape mitigation plan, which provides detail about existing hedgerow and trees, confirms that hedges at the field close to Ms Y’s property will be “reinforced where necessary with native hedge planting”. This is further supported by the planning conditions referenced earlier in this statement. It is too early to say whether the applicant has complied with these requirements, but Ms Y should report any concerns she has to the Council about a failure to adhere with the landscaping plans and conditions. The Council will then decide whether there has been a breach of planning control and, if so, whether to take any action.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We have completed our investigation with a finding of no fault for the reasons explained in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman