Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council decided a planning application for a development near his home. He says there were errors in the information presented to, and not all the relevant information was properly considered by, the Council before it made its decision to approve the application. We have not found fault by the Council in the way it determined the application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains about the way the Council decided a planning application for a development near his home. He says:

• The planning officer’s report did not fully apprise the Council’s planning committee members of the significant environmental impacts identified;
• The Council’s landscape consultants provided misleading information about the impact of the proposal on visual amenity;
• Members did not carry out a site visit before they considered the application; and
• Insufficient acknowledgement was given to the local community’s opposition to the proposal, and the community was not allowed sufficient time to make representations.

2. Mr X says, if the development is allowed to go ahead, the local environment will lose its rural character and agricultural productivity, users of public rights of way will lose their countryside views and sense of tranquillity, and local residents will find themselves living on the edge of an industrial-scale power plant.
3. Mr X wants the planning committee to re-consider its decision to approve the application, after a site visit, the correction of misleading information, and adequate time for local representatives to make written representations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Planning law and guidance

9. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives councils the power to decide if planning applications should be approved, refused, or approved subject to planning conditions.
10. Councils should approve planning applications in line with the policies in their development plans unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise.
11. Material planning considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include:

• Local and national planning policies
• Highway issues
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets
• The impact on neighbouring amenity

12. Planning considerations do not include things like:

• The impact of a development on property value
• Private rights and interest in land

13. Councils may give competing planning considerations different weight when making their decision.

What happened

14. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened.

The planning application

15. In June 2019 a developer submitted a planning application for a solar panel farm on an 85 hectare site within the Council’s district. I understand the proposal was publicised by local media at the time.
16. In January 2020, the developer submitted an environmental statement addendum. This said, following consultation with the Council, changes had been made to address Council concerns about the scale of the development. The solar panel area had been reduced by 30 acres (12 hectares) and landscaping increased.

Progress of the application in 2021

17. On 31 March a planning officer told Mr X in an email “my view is the current submission is not acceptable”.
18. The developer submitted amended site layout details in April. It said it had revised the scheme to address further points raised. It added an environmental statement addendum. This said following advice from the Council’s external landscape consultants, it had made a reduction in panels in certain fields to reduce visual impact and included the retention of agricultural land, to allow the development to appear as two smaller solar panel schemes rather than one larger one.
19. The proposal was advertised, and a site notice posted, in May. 144 public comments were received.

How the Council made its planning decision

20. The Council’s planning officers completed statutory consultations. These included consultations with Historic England, the Ramblers Association and British Horse Society. A planning officer considered the application and responses. As this was a significant/ sensitive/controversial development recommended for approval, the application was to be presented to the planning committee.
21. On 17 August the Council published notice of a meeting of the planning committee on 24 August at which the application would be considered. It also published the planning officer’s report about the application. The meeting was publicised by local media.

The planning officer’s report

22. The planning officer’s report included:
1. A description of the proposal and site. It noted the original proposal for solar panels covering an area of 58.5 hectares had been reduced to 50.6 hectares;
2. Responses from consultees;
3. A summary of the representations received objecting to the application;
4. A summary of the representations received supporting the application;
5. The views of the parish council, and its objections to the proposal; and
6. Details of relevant planning policies and guidance.
23. The planning officer set out their appraisal of the main planning considerations including:

• Landscape and visual aspects;
• Effect on public rights of way;
• Biodiversity;
• Heritage;
• Land uses;
• Residential amenity; and
• Aircraft safety.

24. In their summary the officer said:
1. The proposal would bring significant renewable energy benefits;
2. Local plan policy set out that proposals for renewable and low carbon energy would be approved provided there were no unacceptable adverse impacts on the following six key considerations:

• The proposal would cause significant harm to the local landscape but had evolved to include mitigating features and would have less than an unacceptable adverse impact;
• There would be a loss of agricultural land. But this was Class 3b, lower quality land, to which necessary development was to be directed;
• The proposal was not considered to be unduly harmful to biodiversity and a net gain was anticipated;
• The proposal had a moderate impact on certain rights of way. There was less than substantial harm to scheduled monuments;
• The scheme would not adversely harm adjoining land uses; and
• The proposal was not so adverse as to detract from the level of the residential area as could reasonably be expected.
3. There were no other material considerations that justified opposing the proposal which would provide significant renewable energy and a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

25. The officer recommended the application be approved.

The planning committee meeting

26. The officer’s report was provided to the planning committee members in advance of the meeting on 24 August at which the members considered the application.
27. I have watched the recording of the meeting. At the meeting:

• The planning officer went through issues relating to the application and their report.
• A local resident made objections to the scheme on behalf of the local parish meeting. He spoke for three minutes (the time allowed by the Chair), and then replied to a number of questions from committee members.
• The landowner and the developer’s agent spoke in support of the application for a total of three minutes (the time allowed by the Chair). They then replied to a number of questions from committee members.
• The planning officer replied to questions from committee members.
• The motion to approve the application was debated by committee members.

28. Following the debate, the committee members voted on the motion. There were ten votes for the motion and none against. On this basis the committee resolved to approve the application.

Mr X’s complaint

29. Mr X complained to the Council about the committee’s decision. He said there had been significant mistakes and omissions in the information presented to the committee and no discussion about the adverse impact on the landscape.
30. Mr X was not satisfied with the response from a senior planning officer. He made a formal complaint about the consideration of the application, saying:

• Including comments from supporters or objectors in one single petition could give an incorrect impression about the number of objectors or supporters to the application;
• Facts presented to the committee were wrong;
• The officer’s former concerns about the appropriateness of the proposals were not presented to the committee;
• There was inadequate time for the submission of written representations to be made before the meeting. Only one representative was able to make verbal objections to the application at the meeting. Other objectors were not able to do so;
• The lack of a site visit was acknowledged during the meeting;
• The analysis and discussion of adverse environmental impacts was inadequate and misleading information provided about the biodiversity proposals;
• Case law referred to by the planning officer was out of date and was falsely reassuring; and
• There was no indefensible position here. The balance between environmental harm and energy issues could have gone either way.

The Council’s response

31. In reply to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said:

• Committee members did not decide planning applications on the basis of the number of representations for and against a proposal. Members were entitled to consider interests of those who would benefit in the future;
• The officer’s introduction at the meeting was balanced;
• The officer had protracted discussions with the developer. These resulted in a reduction to the area to be covered in panels and other amendments and resolved the officer’s concerns about its size;
• The application was made in 2019. Comments from the public were received from July 2019 to July 2021. There was sufficient time for anyone who wanted to make representations to do so;
• An objector and the proposers had spoken at the meeting. Committee members were able to ask questions of all the speakers and had debated the application for an hour;
• Members could have deferred decision until after a site visit but chose not to do so;
• There may have been some confusion in the landscape consultant’s evidence about sheep and species rich grassland (which are mutually exclusive). But this was only a small part of the information before the committee. It did not detract from the other landscape enhancements proposed; and
• Each application was decided on its own merits and other planning decisions were not binding.

32. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us.

My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Our role

33. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which a planning decision is made. We can find fault with councils, if (for example) they do not follow an appropriate procedure or take account of relevant information. We cannot question the merits of a council’s decision if it has properly followed its procedures and considered the relevant information.

The consideration of the application

34. As part of the planning process, a council’s planning officers are expected to take a view and make professional judgements on the acceptability of a proposal and provide unbiased and professional advice for council members. This will include a recommendation to either approve or reject an application.
35. The evidence I have seen shows the Council raised concerns with the developer about the size and layout of the development and changes were made in response to these concerns.
36. The planning officer’s report for the committee members set out how they considered the Council’s local plan and polices, the material planning issues and consultee and public responses, including a summary of the objections received.
37. The report explained how the planning officer considered the adverse impacts of the development, reached their professional judgements on the planning issues and their recommendation to approve the application. I do not consider there was fault in the way the officer reached these conclusions.

Planning committee meeting and decision

38. The application was publicised in May and the application was not considered by the committee until August. Over 100 public comments were received, together with a response from the parish council. I do not consider the information I have seen indicates objectors did not have adequate time to make representations.
39. The Council was required to publish, with five clear days’ notice, the meeting date, details and papers. I consider the Council complied with this requirement, and the meeting was open and transparent.
40. The Chair allowed the objector on behalf of the parish council and the proposers an equal amount of time to make their representations. Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and speak in the debate before voting. The meeting chair checked whether members wanted to ask or say anything further before concluding the question and debate stages.
41. Based on what I have seen, I do not consider there is evidence the committee was provided with misleading or incomplete information about relevant material planning considerations. They were told about the significant harm to the local landscape and the loss of agricultural land.
42. But members were entitled to weigh up the competing planning considerations when making their decision. I consider their questions and comments in the debate indicate they did so.
43. They asked, for example, about the agricultural use of the land, the impact on views and the extent of screening. Although a member said a site visit would have been useful, there is no legal requirement for officers and/or members to visit the site of a planning application. And the members did not take the view this was essential before they could make a decision on the application. Members noted the effect on users of rights of way and the loss of agricultural land and said they had weighed these against the benefits of solar energy production.
44. I do not consider there was fault in the way the committee made its decision to approve the application.

Conclusion

45. I understand Mr X’s concern about the impact of the development on the local environment and the decision to approve the application. But, based on the evidence seen, I have not found fault in the way the Council considered, or decided to approve, the planning application.

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council in the way it determined the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman