Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complained about how the Council decided to approve a planning application for a development near to their home. We do not find fault with how the Council considered this application. We find the Council at fault for not sending Mr X and Mrs Y a consultation letter but find the Council has already addressed the injustice this has caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Mrs Y complain the Council failed to consult them prior to granting permission for a development at a neighbouring property, meaning they did not have an opportunity to raise objections. As a result, Mr X and Mrs Y say they are unable to enjoy their garden due to excessive noise and light from the neighbouring property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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. 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)
5. 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

6. We cannot usually investigate complaints about events that took place more than 12 months before a complainant contacted the Ombudsman. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
7. Mr X and Mrs Y first contacted the Ombudsman in December 2024, meaning anything that happened prior to December 2023 has been raised late. This includes the Council’s decision to grant the planning permission being complained about.
8. However, as Mr X and Mrs Y were not consulted about the application, it is reasonable to say they would not have been aware there may be a reason to complain until work started. Mr X and Mrs Y then promptly complained to the Council and contacted the Ombudsman. For this reason, I have exercised discretion to look back at the process the Council followed before granting planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

11. Where planning permission is required, a council must decide on planning applications in accordance with its development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
12. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the applicant’s personal conduct, covenants, or reduction in the value of a property. Material considerations include issues such as overlooking, light generation and noise.
13. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid material planning reasons.
14. Government statements of planning policy are material considerations.
15. General planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g., in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities).
16. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to give to any material consideration in deciding a planning application.
17. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.
18. For major development applications, councils must publicise the application by:
• a local newspaper advertisement; and either
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
19. For all other applications, including minor developments, councils must publicise by either:
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
20. As well as regulatory minimum requirements, councils must also produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the council’s policy on how it will communicate with the public when it carries out its functions. In their SCI policy councils may commit to do more than the minimum legal requirements, for example, to put up a site notice and to serve notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
21. The Council’s SCI says the Council will go further than its statutory obligations and engage with the community by sending individual letters to any sites adjoining the application site.

What happened

22. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
23. The Council received a planning application for a sports pitch with floodlights near to Mr X and Mrs Y’s home. The application was supported by additional documents and plans, including a noise management plan and a lighting statement.
24. The Council consulted locally on the application by sending consultation letters to neighbours whose properties directly adjoin the site, posting a site notice and placing a press advert. The Council has said a gap in its mapping system meant it was not evident Mr X and Mrs Y’s property adjoined the site so they were not sent a consultation letter.
25. The Council received an objection that the floodlights may cause light pollution to the houses that adjoined the site.
26. The Council consulted with Sport England who considered the proposal and confirmed it had no objections. The Council also held an internal meeting to discuss the lighting plans.
27. The Council’s planning case officer’s report on the application outlined the relevant local plan and policies and set out the officer’s consideration of whether the proposed plans would impact on residential amenity. The officer found the proposed plans would be unlikely to generate significant noise or obtrusive lighting to neighbouring residential properties. The report recommended the application be approved.
28. The Council approved permission based on the case officer’s report.
29. After work had started, Mr X and Mrs Y complained to the Council. They said they had not been consulted about the work. Mr X and Mrs Y said they would have raised concerns around likely noise and light pollution. Mr X and Mrs Y said the development was likely to interfere with their enjoyment of their property and provided photographs to show the light spill from the new development.
30. The Council responded to Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaint to explain it was not under a statutory obligation to send consultation letters where it had posted a site notice as well as a newspaper advert but agreed its SCI does say it would do this. The Council apologised that this did not happen in Mr X and Mrs Y’s case and said it had reminded officers to check the extent of neighbour consultations when undertaking site inspections to avoid a recurrence of this. The Council also said it would undertake a check to ensure the lighting was installed in accordance with planning approval and to ensure all other planning obligations were being complied with.

Analysis

31. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is not to consider whether a planning application should have been approved or not. We look at whether there was fault in how a council made its decision. If we decide there was no fault in its decision-making process, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with a council’s decision.
32. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the impact on local residential amenity as a material consideration when looking at this application.
33. The case officer’s report shows they considered and applied relevant policy and consultations. The officer also considered additional noise and light that would be created should the plans be approved, and they decided there would not be a significant enough impact to decline the application. I do not find fault with the process the council’s planning case officer followed when recommending the planning permission be granted.
34. Mr X and Mrs Y did not receive a consultation letter prior to the planning application being approved. While the Council was not under a statutory obligation to write to Mr X and Mrs Y, its SCI says it will send individual letters to adjoining properties so failure to do so is fault. This fault created uncertainty around how the Council would have responded to Mr X and Mrs Y’s objections to the plans, which is injustice.
35. Mr X and Mrs Y have said they would have raised concerns about the noise and light pollution generated by the proposed development. However, it is clear from the case officer’s report that they fully considered the impact of noise and light from the proposed development before recommending the plans be approved. I could not find, even on balance, that if Mr X and Mrs Y had raised their objections prior to this that the case officer would have reached different conclusions. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and Mrs Y for not writing to them and reminded staff to check the extent of neighbour consultations during site visits to avoid a recurrence of the issue going forward and I find this is suitable action to address the injustice here.

Back to top

Decision

36. I do not find fault with how the Council considered the planning application. I find the Council at fault for not sending a consultation letter to Mr X and Mrs Y, however I find it has already taken sufficient action to address the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman