The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant a license for two football pitches as we have not seen evidence of fault in the licensing process. Nor will we investigate the complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to erect a three-metre fence. Any injustice suffered by the complainant is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And we cannot achieve the outcome sought.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Miss B, says the Council: ignored wrong information on a planning application failed to erect a site notice at the correct time failed to consider material planning considerations failed to contact a statutory consultee delayed in the complaint process Miss B wants the planning decision quashed and the application reconsidered.
She says she and her family cannot now access the entire playing field area. And she has spent time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement further investigation would not lead to a different outcome we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In 2019 the Council issued a license to the local football club to occupy two football pitches on public playing fields near Miss B’s home. The Council also gave permission for the club to erect a 2-metre fence enclosing the pitches.
Miss B was aware the Council had granted the license in 2019. But she says the public, including herself, were not aware the arrangement included 2-metre fencing around the pitches.
From the information I have seen, the Council followed the correct procedure for licensing the pitches. 2-metre fencing is permitted development and can be erected without planning permission. Further investigation of this point is unlikely to lead to a finding of fault.
The club did not erect the 2-metre fence. Instead, it applied for planning permission to erect a 3-metre fence.
The Council did not erect a site notice to publicise the application for the 3-metre fence until two weeks after the application went live. It also failed to notify Sport England, a statutory consultee.
However, the Council did erect a site notice, correctly publicising the application. Sport England objected to the application because Miss B told them about it. Therefore, I do not consider Miss B has suffered significant personal injustice because of these two errors.
Miss B also complains the Council ignored material planning considerations. 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. 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.
The case officer wrote a report on the proposal. It included the planning history of the site and summarised the objections including those from Miss B and Sport England. The case officer referred to relevant planning policies, balancing and weighing the planning issues and judging the merits of the proposal.
Miss B says the Council failed to consider traffic and parking implications. She says this should have been done because the fencing around the pitches will lead to an increase in use. Which in turn will lead to increased traffic and parking problems in the surrounding area.
The planning officer’s report shows the Council consulted with its highway engineers who had no objection to the application. With no objections from the highway engineers the Council would have no grounds for refusing the application on highway grounds.
Finally, the report details the relevant national and local planning policies and explains why the officer considered the proposal to comply with those policies.
The committee minutes show the application was discussed. Following the debate, the committee voted to approve the application subject to it not being called in by the Secretary of State.
The Council referred the matter to the Secretary of State who decided not to intervene. The application was approved.
I have seen no evidence of fault in the decision-making process followed by the Council for the planning application.
Miss B also complains the Council failed to meet the response deadlines set out in its complaint procedure.
While we expect the Council to respond according to its complaint policy, I do not propose to investigate this issue further. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue. We do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because: I appreciate Miss B has spent time and energy following her complaint, and her family cannot access the whole the playing fields as they have done previously. However, I do not consider the injustice suffered because of the decision to allow the 3-metre fence around the pitches is sufficient to warrant our involvement we cannot quash the planning permission or rerun the application process; and there is insufficient injustice in a failure in the complaints process alone to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman