Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (04C13282 + 3 others)

Planning applications & Environmental health

Maladministration causing injustice

21 November 2006

Two residents. ‘Mr Ash’ and ‘Mr Yew’ (not their real names for legal reasons) complained about the Council’s handling of an application for development of an existing garage on a site next to their properties. The development included a new car jet wash and a replacement car wash. Spray from the car washes is not contained and drifts over Mr Ash’s property. This is a significant loss of amenity to him and his partner, and has an adverse effect on his fragile health.

The Ombudsman found that when they dealt with the planning application, the Planning Service failed to consider properly:

• Mr Ash’s objection about spray;
• recommendations from Environmental Health Officers;
• existing information about problems of spray drift from car washes; and
• the proximity of residential properties to the repositioned car wash and new jet wash.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officers were diligent in recommending conditions (but a spray prevention condition was not accepted by the Planning Service) and then in seeking to deal with the problems. They issued what is possibly the first abatement notice on the grounds that the spray drift was a statutory nuisance. A district judge allowed the garage owner’s appeal against the notice, ruling that the spray was not a statutory nuisance and saying “… although the spray occurs moderately frequently its impact is not as detrimental or severe …” as the complainant would have him believe.

The Ombudsman finds that the loss of amenity caused by the spray drift should be remedied by a payment of £10,000 to Mr Ash (or £3,500 if the Council funds a permanent physical solution to the spray drift problem) and that the Council should engage a district valuer to assess any loss in the value of his property and compensate him accordingly.

The Ombudsman did not find that any injustice was caused to Mr Yew.

Date Updated: 16/01/09