Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains planning officers misled the Council’s planning committee (‘the committee’). He says this led to a decision to approve a planning application for an artificial grass pitch with associated development. Mr X says this will lead to unacceptable noise at his home which will prevent him from using his garden or having his windows open when the pitch is in use.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a planning application for an artificial grass pitch with acoustic fencing, hardstanding, storage, floodlights and other associated development.
6. It publicised the application and received comments from statutory consultees and the public.
7. The planning officer prepared a report on the scheme and presented it to the planning committee. The report noted there would be harm caused to neighbours in terms of noise and light pollution. However the officer considered the wider public benefit outweighed the harm and recommended the application for approval.
8. The Committee decided to defer a decision on the application. It asked for more information including:
• A bat survey report.
• A review by the Council’s environmental health team of the Noise Impact Assessment report provided by residents.
• Demonstration by the applicant whether an amended layout of the pitch would reduce harm; and
• Provision of a Construction Method Statement.
9. The information was obtained and the application referred back to the Committee for a decision.
10. The Officer’s report shows their view of the application was finely balanced. They acknowledged there will be harm to residential amenity. However they considered the benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm. They were satisfied with the noise mitigation proposed, including reducing the operating hours and relocating the pitch further from residential properties. The officers recommended approval.
11. The meeting minutes show two people spoke in favour of the application and four spoke against it. Committee members debated the proposal before deciding to approve the application.
12. I understand Mr X is concerned the Committee was misled because:
• The applicant stated the development is not visible from the public highway which is not true.
• The officer told the Committee that noise levels in the report included spectator noise which is not true.
• The Officer failed to tell the Committee the prediction noise level is above 50 decibels.
• The Officer dismissed other sites for the proposed scheme because of assumptions rather than fact.
13. However:
• The Highways Authority as statutory consultee makes its own decisions on which sites to visit and had no objection to the application.
• The full noise reports which include confirmation that noise levels above 50 decibels are noted. However it is also noted the highest predicted level is 46 decibels at the nearest noise sensitive homes. The reports were available online for the Committee members to consider in full prior to the meeting.
• The noise levels were considered. The Council acknowledges the levels of noise will cause harm to residential amenity. It also acknowledged the noise reports included averages which have limitations. However, having considered all the information, hearing from those for and against the proposal and debating the application, the Council decided the benefits from the scheme outweighed the harm.
• Three alternative sites were noted. One dismissed as it would cause similar or more harm than the existing proposal. Two sites were discounted as they overlapped other facilities which Sport England would not approve.
14. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is for planning officers and committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
15. From the information I have seen, the Committee had access to the full noise reports, considered the officer’s report and heard from people both for and against the application before making its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman