Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a sports hub with artificial grass pitches near her home. We found no fault in the planning process the Council followed to reach its views. It therefore reached a decision it was entitled to make.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a sports hub with artificial grass pitches and a play area. She said planning approval was flawed because:
• information in representations were edited in a manner which reduced key content and its importance;
• advice given by the planning officer to the committee was legally wrong regarding the Council’s duty of care for waste and sustainability, and conclusions were wrong;
• many of the Council’s own policies and national guidance had been ignored; and
• funding under a section 106 agreement regarding the development was not disclosed to the committee.
2. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s complaint handling.
3. As a result, Mrs X said the development should not have been approved and there will be a loss of green space and amenity in the area where she lives. She also said she had time and trouble to bring her concerns to the Council’s attention.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, 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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs X;
• considered the planning documents and panel hearing available on the Council’s website; and
• considered the relevant law, guidance and policy to the complaint.
8. Mrs 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

Relevant law, guidance and policy

9. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
10. Planning considerations include things like:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
11. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• Views from a property;
• The impact of a development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.
12. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
13. Details of how a council considered an application are usually found in planning case officer reports. The purpose of case officer reports 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.
14. 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.
15. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons.
16. General planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g. in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities).
17. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application.

Waste

18. It is the duty of any person who uses or disposes of controlled waste to take reasonable appropriate measures to transfer the waste to an authorised person for the disposal or transport of the waste. (Environmental Protection Act 1990, Section 34)
19. The Council’s Waste Strategy says it aims to increase and support recycling. This includes a commitment to reduce waste, stop using so much plastic, reuse more and harness growing public interest in climate change.
20. The Environment Agency is the body responsible for regulating the protection and enhancement of the environment in England and Wales. This includes the regulation of waste. It can issue permits for using, storing, treating, or disposing of waste. It has powers to take enforcement action against anyone who acts without permit in certain circumstances.

What happened

21. In 2019 the Council approved an area of land (the site) near Mrs X’s home as one of four areas to be developed as an all-weather multi sports hub with football pitches through funding from the Football Foundation.
22. The Council provided information and held an exhibition for the public. In 2021 the Council advertised the proposal for the development of the site and consulted with statutory consultees.
23. In 2022 the Council sent consultation letters to neighbours and consulted further with statutory consultees.
24. The Council’s Plans Panel considered the planning application in Autumn 2022, which included representations from neighbours of the development. The Panel decided the Council, as the applicant, should arrange a further consultation with the local community. The Panel also wanted further consideration in relation to parking arrangement, floodlighting and its impact, the artificial pitches lifespan and impact on the environment, and the accessibility for the community to use the facilities.
25. The Council held its second consultation and the views received were published on the Council’s website. It also considered the Plans Panels concerns through studies and further consultations.
26. The Planning Officer’s report was updated with the additional information and set out the Officer view the application was acceptable in planning terms. It recommended the planning application should be delegated for the Council Chief Planning Officer approval including any amendment to or additional conditions he considered appropriate.
27. In November 2022, the Council’s Plans Panel considered the planning application again. It decided to delegate the approval of the application to the Council’s Chief Planning Officer. The meeting record shows it considered:
• the sustainability of the development in planning terms, specifically regarding the economic, social and environmental impacts;
• the Council’s policies and the NPPF;
• the representations it received in the consultations, previous Plans Panel meeting, and subsequent comments on the proposal were summarised for members;
• the funding arrangement for the development, which required artificial pitches rather than grass pitches;
• the environmental impact of the artificial pitches, rubber crumbs and the mitigation which had been put in place;
• the local need for the all-weather multi sports pitches, and who the facilities were accessible to for equality purposes;
• the impact on biodiversity;
• the impact on local amenity regarding parking and lighting; and
• a condition was needed to allow local residents a way to have their concerns about the construction of the development considered.
28. In February 2023, the Planning Officer’s report was updated, and the Council’s Chief Planning Officer approved the planning application. This was subject to conditions which included matters around the construction of the development, operating hours, materials, noise plans, tree and other vegetation protection, landscape management, lighting plans, traffic and parking monitoring plans, and how the public could raise concerns during the construction of the development.

Mrs X’s complaint

29. Mrs X complained to the Council. They key points of her complaint were the planning approval was flawed because:
• information in representations were edited in a manner which reduced key content and its importance. Including a professor’s concerns about rubber crumbs and artificial pitches were not properly considered;
• advice given by the planning officer to the committee was legally wrong regarding the Council’s duty of care for waste and sustainability, and conclusions were wrong;
• many of the Council’s own policies and national guidance have been ignored; and
• funding under a section 106 agreement regarding the development was not disclosed to the committee.
30. In response the Council found it had properly considered the planning application. It told Mrs X:
• it had properly considered the representations it had received from the public and consultees. These were available to members in the planning documents and summarised in the Plans Panel meeting;
• concerns about the recycling of the artificial pitches and rubber crumbs had been brought to its members attention and discussed. However, the use was acceptable in planning terms, and it was the Environment Agency’s responsibility for ensuring such materials could be recycled;
• members were aware of the Section 106 funding agreement and this was summarised;
• the location of the development had previously been considered and decided, and its view was all sections of the local community could access the facilities;
• it agreed the development may conflict with some development plan policies. However, this was normal for developments and the Council had to balance these against the benefits of the scheme. It had found the development should be approved with mitigations through conditions to limit the adverse impact the development may have.
31. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She also said some conditions attached to the planning approval should be consulted on.
32. In its final response the Council did not change its view. It explained it had given careful consideration to all material planning considerations and other matters. It had found its decision complied with both local and national planning policy.
33. Mrs X asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.

Analysis and findings

34. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of the planning application for which it was also the planning applicant.
35. 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.
36. In this case this relates only to the Council’s role as the Local planning Authority, as I cannot consider the Council’s actions as the planning applicant.

Was there fault in the Plans Panel process?

37. I have considered each point of Mrs X’s complaint. I acknowledge she disagrees with the Council’s decision, as she believes the development should have been on another site and with grass pitches.
38. However, I have not found fault in the process the Plans Panel followed to reach its view and delegate the planning application approval to the Council’s Chief Planning Officer. In reaching my view, I am conscious the Council followed planning guidance as it:
• consulted with the local community;
• consulted with relevant statutory consultees, and reconsulted after concerns had been considered further or mitigated;
• deferred its decision for further consideration on matters the Plans Panel wanted further information and clarification on. This also included a further consultation with the local community;
• considered the representations it received before and after the deadline for comments;
• set out its view in the Planning Officer’s report and kept this updated. This set out the Council’s findings on whether the proposal was acceptable in planning terms. It also said the proposal engaged a conflict between different Council policies, but it found these were acceptable and recommended approval;
• considered material planning considerations which included the impact on local amenity, the landscape, biodiversity, archaeology and sustainability of the development in planning terms;
• had regard to some non-material planning considerations which included the funding of the proposal and its requirement for artificial grass pitches and waste disposal; and
• reached a decision it was entitled to make by balancing the conflicting aims and policies against the benefits of the development. This was to delegate the planning application approval to its Chief Planning Officer.
39. In addition, I acknowledge the use of artificial grass and rubber crumbs are a topic of concerns for policy makers which includes the Football Foundation, Local Authorities, and the Environment Agency. However, I can only consider the Council’s role as a planning authority. As the use of such materials are not banned, the Council was entitled to balance its view on the economic, social and environmental impacts of its use against its policies and the benefits of the development.
40. As I have not found enough evidence of fault in the process the Plans Panel followed to reach its decision, I cannot criticise its decision.

The Planning approval and conditions

41. The Council approved the planning application in February 2023 without any significant changes to the proposed development. This was subject to conditions.
42. Mrs X said the use of conditions should be limited, and the Council should consult with the public on the conditions.
43. I have not found the Council at fault. The Council’s Chief Planning Officer had the delegated power to approve the planning application and put in place the conditions he found necessary to ensure the development was appropriately managed.
44. While I understand Mrs X would like for the local community to be involved in the discharge of conditions, the Council was not required to put this in place, nor would it be normal practice to do so.
45. Also, while there are many planning conditions attached to the planning approval which relates to the protection of local amenity, traffic, protecting the environment, and enables the community to raise concerns about the construction of the development. I have not found any evidence these were excessive. Rather, these shows the Council have considered Mrs X and the local community’s concerns and aimed to mitigate any impact the development would have on them.

Complaints handling

46. Mrs X said she complained to the Council in late 2022, but the Council believes she first complained around four weeks later. She also said its final complaint response was poor as it did not properly respond to her concerns.
47. I found the Council may have been at fault for causing a short delay in acknowledging and responding to Mrs X’s complaint.
48. However, I found no fault in the quality of its responses. It was entitled to refer Mrs X to its stage one response, as it found this had appropriately addressed her concerns and set out its view.
49. Also, as I have not found fault in how the Council handled the substantial matters of Mrs X’s complaint, I am not satisfied the short delay caused her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its planning decision, it was therefore entitled to reach its view. It is on this basis I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman