Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application near her home. She also complained there was delay addressing a complaint she made. We found there was no fault in the way the Council reached its planning decisions. However, there was some delay addressing an enforcement complaint. This did not cause significant injustice to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly consider her amenity when it approved planning applications to allow development of sports fields close to her home. She is concerned about stray balls, additional noise and the impact on her privacy because the ground level has been raised.
2. Ms X also complains there was a delay in the Council’s response to her complaint, it declined to visit to consider the impact and it has failed to consider her complaint about the matter properly.
3. Ms X says the change in ground levels has effectively created a viewing platform which has affected her privacy, the matter has been stressful and frustrating because there has been no acceptance of the issue.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. Ms X complained to the Council in September 2022 about works to sports pitches adjacent to her home. Ms X moved to her property in early 2020. Planning permission for work to the site was granted before she moved to her property. After Ms X moved in 2021, an application was made to change the approved planning permission.
8. The original permission was part of the public record and available to Ms X before she moved to her property, so I am not investigating how the original planning decision was made. I am investigating the events of Ms X’s complaint from 2021.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I spoke to Ms X and considered information she provided. I asked the Council for information, considered information on the online planning file and viewed a recording of the planning committee’s consideration of the application. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
10. Ms 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

Background

11. The Council approved work on sloping land adjacent to Ms X’s property in 2018. The land was already used for sport. The works proposed three new pitches on the site, including a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA).
12. The case officer’s report noted there were properties on three sides of the site, some in close proximity. The proposals required engineering works to level off the areas of the land for the new pitches. The plans showed that the land nearest to Ms X’s property would not be increased in height when the levelling work was carried out. The application was approved subject to conditions.

The Planning Application

13. In 2021 the Council received an application to change the approved plans. A key change was moving the MUGA to another position, nearer Ms X’s property. The revised plans show the land near to Ms X’s property would be terraced to raise the MUGA 4.8m higher than the pitch next to it. The plans show that some soil was being removed from the lower pitch to create the higher level. The plans indicate the original land level would be increased by around 2.5m - 3m at the edge of the MUGA as a result.
14. The case officer’s report noted the original approval required the developer to submit details of the slab levels so the council could be certain of the final levels of the pitches. It noted the pitch levels were shown on the revised plans. It stated, the proposed levels were considered acceptable. As a result, the Council decided the slab level condition would not be needed. The Council would instead place a condition requiring the development to adhere to the submitted plans.
15. The Council provided correspondence between the planning officer and the applicant’s planning agent which showed that the planning officer had considered the levels of the pitches in detail and raised a number of queries about site levels while considering the application.
16. The case officer’s report considered the amenity impact of the development. The officer stated the changes proposed were not considered significant, so it determined that residential amenity would not be greatly affected, compared to the original permission. It noted an existing condition controlling hours of usage would still apply.
17. The application was considered by the planning committee. Their discussion of the application centred on the need for tree removals. After a discussion between council members and officers, they voted unanimously to approve the application.
18. The Council noted, when the application was considered, no concerns were raised by the public about the impact of the level of pitches on their amenity.

Ms X’s complaint

19. Ms X raised concerns about the development in September 2022 to a councillor when work started. These centred on the increase in levels. She says the Councillor passed these to planning enforcement straight away. Ms X raised the issue again with planning enforcement a few days later. She also left a message for planning enforcement on 20 October, but no-one called her back.
20. The Council logged an enforcement report about the site levels with its planning enforcement team in October 2022. It told us, at that time, it did not have enforcement officers available because it was in the process of transferring this function to another council as part of a shared services agreement.
21. Ms X made a complaint to the Council in writing on 3 November 2022 when she had not received a response. In her complaint she complained that the decision to pass the planning application meant the ground level on the sports pitches was now above her boundary wall and she was concerned about privacy and stray balls given the height change. She stated she had not received a response from planning enforcement to the concerns she raised in September.
22. In response to Ms X’s complaint the Council apologised for the lack of response from planning enforcement. It stated many investigative staff had left the Council recently and it was very short staffed.
23. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint on 2 December. The Council explained the planning background. It stated the planning approval from 2018 would have showed up on planning searches as part of Ms X’s move to the property. It noted the site was in use as sports pitches prior to the development work, so some risk of balls crossing boundaries could have occurred prior to the development. The Council stated fencing had been agreed around the sports pitches but because the site was within green belt, it would not have allowed this to be taller. The Council explained the consideration it gave to site levels when considering the application. It did not agree the levels were harmful in planning terms. The Council stated planning enforcement would consider if the approved plans had been implemented correctly.
24. In reply, Ms X clarified her concerns about the original planning decision and the decision to move the MUGA nearer to her. She told the Council she did not question the implementation of the plans, and did not want the height of the MUGA to be measured; this was not her query. Rather she was concerned that the plans had been approved and her amenity had not been considered properly as the height now posed a greater risk of stray balls. She questioned what may be possible to address the issue.
25. The Council responded further in late December. It apologised again for the delay in responding to Ms X’s enforcement complaint. The Council explained that it could not suggest changes to an already approved planning consent. The Council stated any permanent solution would need planning permission. It stated it was not considered there would be a significant increase to noise or impact to privacy and site assessments were carried out when deciding the application. It stated, as it could not require changes to the permission it did not intend to do an enforcement site visit as a result.
26. In February 2023 the Council assigned an enforcement officer to check that the development was being carried out in accord with the approved plans. They visited the site twice, reviewed what was on site against the plans and liaised with the planning officer who dealt with the application. They found there was no breach of planning control.
27. Ms X told us she was unhappy that the Council had not made here aware that the enforcement team were going to visit the site in early 2023. She had not spoken to an enforcement officer. After the Council told Ms X of the visits, she asked the Council to measure the height of the pitch, but it did not respond further.

Was there fault by the Council

28. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a planning decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether a decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with it.
29. I recognise that Ms X considered the increase in the height of land near to her house affected her privacy. She also considered it created a greater concern about the risk of stray balls causing damage. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the planning application, and the information it took account of when deciding to approve it.
30. I found no fault in the way the Council considered the application to change the planning permission in 2021. There is evidence that the heights were properly considered by the case officer and the Council had considered whether the development affected resident’s amenity.
31. There was a delay in the Council addressing Ms X’s enforcement report. At the time of the complaint in September there was a lack of response. However, Ms X made it clear her complaint was focussed on the planning approvals rather than any suggestion that the plans had not been adhered to. When the site was visited and the reports considered further, no breach of planning was found. As a result, I do not consider the delay in addressing the enforcement report led to any significant injustice to Ms X. I recognise that Ms X felt she should have been contacted by the Council in early 2023 and it did not respond to correspondence she sent afterwards. However, aside from the delay, I found the Council took reasonable steps to investigate the enforcement report. I do not have grounds to question the decision it took or to require further action.
32. The formal complaint itself was responded to in December, just outside the timescales the Council aims to meet. As there was only a very limited delay in this response, this does not represent fault.
33. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot say it should have reached a different outcome or seek additional actions to be taken by the council. I found the Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decisions in this case. Therefore, I cannot therefore criticise it or seek further actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I found fault with the Council, but this did not lead to an injustice to Ms X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman