Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permission which is the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms W complains the Council did not fully consider the objections to a planning application for a solar farm. She is concerned about possible future flooding.
2. Ms W wants the planning permission revoked.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
4. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms W and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in deciding a planning application.
8. We can look at the Council’s decision-making process, but we can’t say if a decision is right or wrong. The Council should take account of law, policy, relevant evidence, and information. If it has followed those steps we cannot find fault.
9. Ms W says the Council failed to properly consider or give enough weight to:
• Flooding concerns raised by objectors.
• The cumulative effect of another solar farm, substation and battery storage units above the village.
• The visual impact on the area and landscape.
10. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the concerns detailed above before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the objections received from residents.
11. The report includes consideration of flooding. It notes the site is in flood zone one which has low risk of surface water flooding. The proposal passes the sequential test. The proposed drainage system is considered acceptable and is not considered to result in undue harm to residential amenity.
12. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) report was provided with the application. It includes reference to other solar installations in the area and concludes the proposal will have a moderate to major adverse impact on the area. The Council’s Landscape Officer has considered the LVIA and decided the proposal will have significant harm to the site and the wider area.
13. The Planning Officer states in the report that full mitigation of the impact of the proposal on the area is not possible. However they explain changes to the topography would be limited and existing trees and hedgerows would be retained with new planting. The Officer considered with mitigation the impact of the landscape will be moderate. This is a professional judgement the Officer is entitled to make.
14. I understand Ms W disagrees with the Planning Officer’s views. However, as explained in paragraphs seven and eight, it is for the decision maker to decide what weight to give to a material consideration. And without evidence of fault in the decision-making process we cannot criticise the decision.
15. In this case the Planning Officer’s report includes:
• A summary of objections
• Details of relevant national and local policy
• Comments from the Local Lead Flood Authority; and
• An explanation of why the Planning Officer recommended approval.
16. The minutes of the Council’s Planning Committee meeting show:
• Objectors spoke against the application
• A debate took place; and
• A vote took place and the Committee Chair used his casting vote to approve the application.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms W’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application.

Also, Ms W wants the planning application revoked. This is not something we can achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman