Summary: The complaint is about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for the change of use of land. We found no fault in the decision-making process.

The complaint

1. This is a complaint from an individual that I will refer to as ‘X’. X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a change of use of land near their home.
2. X said the new use would increase daytime noise and so impact their amenity, as well as other residents who live near the site. X said they believed the acoustic survey submitted with the application was defective.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

Planning law and guidance

5. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
6. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
7. 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.
8. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
9. Most planning decisions are not made by council planning committees. Councils may delegate decisions to planning officers to make, that are restricted to circumstances set out in delegation schemes. Delegation schemes are found in a council’s constitution.
10. Councils have the power to revoke planning permissions they grant or that are granted by development orders (eg permitted development orders) before the development is completed. If revocation is successful, the developer may claim compensation for works and other abortive costs that were incurred between the grant of approval and revocation. In exceptional cases, such as where councils discover they have been misled and, but for this, they might have made a different decision, they can seek action in the high court to have their decisions quashed.
11. The decision of whether to revoke an application or seek a remedy in the courts is a matter for the Council’s discretion.

What happened

12. The owner of land near X’s home applied for planning permission to change its use to run a business that is likely to cause noise disturbance to nearby residents.
13. The application was publicised and a planning case officer assessed the proposal and wrote a report. The case officer report included:
• a description of the proposal and site;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees, including its environmental health officer (EHO) relating to noise;
• the EHO told the planning officer that they had considered the acoustic report and had no objections to the application, providing it included planning conditions to control hours of use and the intensity of use of the site;
• details from relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity, ecology, and highway safety; and
• the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions, including those recommended by the EHO.
14. The decision to approve the application subject to the recommended conditions was made for the Council by a senior officer using delegated authority.
15. X said that, after a decision was made, residents complained to the professional body of the person who wrote the acoustic report. X said that the professional body indicated it noticed problems with the report, but it did not say what they were.
16. In response to an earlier draft of this decision, X said:
• there were a large number of objections and this should have triggered a site visit;
• the development was outside the development boundary, but the case officer did not mention this in their report;
• they do not believe the planning case officer considered the acoustic report and because they subsequently discovered there were errors in the report means the Council should reconsider its decision.

Back to top

What I found

17. 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. We can only investigate the decision making processes of bodies within our jurisdiction, which in this case is the Council’s planning authority.
18. Before the Council made its planning decision, it:
• publicised the application;
• considered the proposal and plans;
• considered comments from the public and other consultees, including the EHO; and
• took account of relevant planning policy.
19. This is the decision-making process we would expect and so I find no fault.
20. On the comments X made on my draft decision, my views are as follows:
• The number of objections is not in itself a material planning consideration. The case officer’s reports show the main issues were considered before a decision was made.
• The location of the site is referred to in the case officer’s report and the application including a site location plan. The case officer also referred to the rural location and agricultural style of some of the buildings.
• The case officer report refers to the acoustic several times in their report and the EHO gave advice on it. The evidence shows the report was considered.
• The Council has now approved the development and it is lawful. We have no power to quash planning decisions – only the high court can do this. If X has real evidence to show the Council was misled, it can provide it to the Council, which can use its discretion to decide whether it should take further action.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I completed my investigation as I found no fault in the way the Council made its planning decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman