Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near to his home. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants and there is not enough evidence Mr X has suffered a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council was at fault in how it considered a planning application to alter a sports field near his home. He complains that the Council:
• Lacked meaningful oversight of planning matters.
• Did not properly consider the local and national policies affecting the application, particularly because it was inside a conservation area.
• Did not meaningfully debate the application at committee level.
• Removed planning conditions without scrutiny.
2. Mr X says the impact of the sports field development going ahead, has caused him stress because of the likely increased noise and light pollution he will suffer. Mr X is also concerned about a loss in the value of his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. Mr X 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

Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that align with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.
9. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
10. Some councils issue guidance on how they would normally make their decisions and how they generally apply planning policy. The guidance is sometimes found in the local plan itself or issued in separate supplementary planning documents.
11. Planning guidance and policy should not be treated as if it creates a binding rule that must be followed. Councils must take account their policy along with other material planning considerations.
12. Among other things, guidance will often set out separation distances between dwellings to protect against overshadowing and loss of privacy.
13. Although guidance can set different limits, councils normally allow 21 metres between directly facing habitable rooms (such as bedrooms, living and dining rooms) or 12 metres between habitable rooms and blank elevations or elevations that contain only non-habitable room windows (such as bathrooms, kitchens and utility rooms). An ‘elevation’ is the face or view of it from one side shown in a plan.
14. Details of how a council considered an application are usually found in planning case officer reports. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
15. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.
16. Councils have the power to create Conservation Areas. These are areas considered to have special architectural or historic interest that should be preserved or enhanced.
17. Councils are under a duty to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing Conservation Areas when making decisions on planning applications. Even if a proposed development is outside a Conservation Area, councils may take account of the impact it will have upon the Conservation Area itself.

Background

18. In 2021, the landowner behind Mr X’s home applied to replace the existing grass area of a sports field with a synthetic material. They requested approval to erect a five-metre perimeter fence and install retractable floodlights. They also requested approval to increase the operating hours to remain open until 9pm at night on weekdays and to be open at weekends.
19. In May 2021, the Council registered the application, and a planning case officer wrote a report setting out the main planning considerations and their recommendations.
20. The planning case officer report included:
• A description of the proposal and site.
• A summary of the planning history.
• Details of the relevant planning policy and guidance.
• A summary of comments from neighbours and other consultees.
• An appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the impact on amenity, highways and drainage.
• The officer’s recommendation to approve the application subject to there being no objection from the water utility company.
21. The planning case officer presented their report to a planning applications committee (PAC) which heard the application in December 2021. The planning case officer said in their report that the matter was presented to the PAC because of the nature and number of objections the planning department had received.
22. In June 2022, the Council registered an application for a discharge of conditions that were placed on the initial application. The available evidence shows the application was accompanied by additional reports relating to the conditions.
23. Mr X said, in his letter of complaint, that the London Plan, national policies and numerous council plans had either been contravened or not properly considered by the Council.
24. Mr X said this meant the following aspects were not adequately considered:
• local character and amenity
• noise and light intrusion
• biodiversity
• traffic
25. Mr X also says the discharge of the conditions in June 2022 should have been properly scrutinised.

My findings

26. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
27. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
28. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
29. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
30. I will not investigate this complaint further for the following reasons:
• There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
• There is no significant injustice to Mr X.
• We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
31. The evidence shows the planning case officer used their discretion to increase scrutiny of the application by bringing it to the PAC, at which Mr X was present and contributed.
32. The planning case officer report cited several policies considered in the compilation of the report. The report acknowledged the concerns raised in the objections to the application concerning the character of the area, noise, traffic and biodiversity.
33. The report also acknowledged that light pollution was a concern but highlighted features that would limit the impact on residents.
34. More broadly the report accepts there would be some impact on residents, but these were considered acceptable.
35. Before the Council made its decision, it considered the report, together with the application plans, the development as it affected the surroundings, relevant policy and guidance and the comments of those consulted with. This is the decision-making process I would expect and so I am unlikely to find fault.
36. The report also specifically acknowledges the proximity of the nearest boundary on Mr X’s street, which is no less than 50 metres and is shielded by other buildings.
37. I note here that the rear of Mr X’s home is approximately 100 metres from the proposed development and there are other buildings which are between Mr X’s home and the development, all of which limit the impact the development will have on Mr X.
38. For these reasons, I do not believe either the development or the Council’s approval of the development will cause Mr X a significant injustice.
39. As an outcome, Mr X has asked – among other things – we ensure the Council enforce the planning conditions set and ask the Council to compensate him for the loss in value of their properties. We would not be able to achieve these outcomes.
40. The planning conditions that were subsequently discharged were considered in line with the decision-making process available to the Council.
41. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that further investigation is likely to result in a finding of fault or achieve the outcome Mr X is looking for.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I am ending my investigation as it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault, achieve the outcome Mr X wants, and I do not believe the Council’s actions have caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman