Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with planning applications for an agricultural site next to Mrs X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to correctly describe the location of the site for planning applications next to her home. She says this meant people did not know they would be affected and therefore did not object. She also complains the Council:
• failed to apply green belt and other local policies
• failed to require an Environmental Impact Assessment
• failed to require a Health Impact Assessment
• failed to require the barn to be placed as far from residential properties as possible, as advised by the environmental health team.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to revoke the planning permissions. If this is not possible, she wants the Council to:
• upgrade the lane on which she lives
• move the barns further away from her property
• install separate water and power connections for the barn; and
• clear the ditches.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning controls the design, location and appearance of development and its impact on public amenity. Planning controls are not designed to protect private rights or interests. The Council may grant planning permission with conditions to control the use or development of land.
7. Local Planning Authorities must consider each application it receives on its own merits and decide it in line with their local planning policies, unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Material considerations concern the use and development of land in the public interest and include issues such as overlooking, traffic generation and noise. People’s comments on planning and land use issues linked to development proposals will be material considerations. Councils must take such comments into account but do not have to agree with those comments.
8. The Council approved four planning applications for a site next to her home.
9. Mrs X says the Council failed to describe the site correctly meaning people who will be affected did not object. However, Mrs X did object to the applications, so she did not suffer any personal injustice because of the alleged error. Also, Mrs X has no authority to complain for anyone else. If any third parties consider the Council to be at fault it was for them to make their own complaints.
10. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to follow several of its own and national planning policies.
11. From the information I have seen it is evident the planning officers visited the site. The case officer prepared reports on the scheme. These outlined the various national and local planning policies which were relevant to the applications. The reports also detail the officers’ opinions as to why the applications comply with the policies and overcome the objections received.
12. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the planning officer’s views. However, it is for planning officers and/or 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.
13. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer decided:
• The applications are for farm buildings which are not inappropriate development in the green belt.
• The applications do not require Health Impact Assessments as they are each for land of less than 1,000 square metres and are not within 400 metres of a school entrance.
• The agricultural buildings are of a utilitarian design, sited on farmland and of appear in keeping with the use of the land.
• There is no evidence to suggest that the level of traffic would result in harm to other road users. The use of the barns is for cattle shelter in poor weather. And for storage of materials such as feed and hay.
• There are no planning rules or restrictions that would limit the number of cows that can roam and graze the land. There is no evidence to suggest that any noise or odour emitted from the lawful use of the land would be so amplified within the barns to result in a significant harm to neighbour amenity.

These are professional judgements the officer is entitled to make.

14. Mrs X wants the Ombudsman to require the Council to withdraw the planning permissions or

• upgrade the lane on which she lives

• move the approved barns further away from her property

• install separate water and power connections for the barn; and

• clear the ditches.

We cannot achieve the above outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning applications. Also, Mrs X has not suffered any personal injustice because of the Council’s descriptions of the sites. She has objected and the evidence shows the Council considered her objections. Finally, we cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman