Isle of Wight Council (05B00785)

Planning enforcement and Planning applications

Maladministration, but no injustice

30 March 2006

The Council received a planning application in March 2003 for continued use of land for motorcross and associated engineering works. Extensive earthworks were then carried out. ‘Mr and Mrs Knight’ (not their real names for legal reasons) said that they were affected by noise from the site. They had a number of criticisms about the way the Council considered this application.

The Council sought legal advice on the validity of the original decision notice and was advised to consider the application afresh. On 12 August 2003 the Council resolved that temporary planning consent should be issued. Council officers admitted that there were some shortcomings in the way that the previous application was dealt with but claim that they did not impact on the outcome. Another local resident sought Judicial Review of both decisions. The Council resolved not to take enforcement action regarding an event held in May 2004. A consent order that quashed both planning permissions was signed on 9 June 2004. The site was used for two events in September and October 2004. Enforcement action was authorised on 26 October 2004 when it became obvious that the promoter had not commissioned the preparation of an environmental statement to accompany a planning application for the use of the land on a permanent basis. However, the Council agreed to an event taking place in August 2005 which was controlled by a section 106 agreement.

In his conclusions, the Ombudsman commented “I can see that it could appear to the complainants and other local residents that the Council in effect turned a blind eye to breaches of planning control.” But he explained that “There is no obligation on the Council to take enforcement action in cases like this, it has a discretion to do so.” He could not criticise the merits of the Council’s decisions not to take such action.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the Council only on two points: in 2003 it failed to consider whether an environmental impact assessment was necessary; and in June 2003 a decision notice was issued before a solicitor’s comments had been considered. However, the Ombudsman finds that neither of these faults caused injustice to Mr and Mrs Knight. On the first point, the Council might reasonably have concluded that no environmental impact assessment was necessary at that time, and on the second point, the decision notice was retrieved, and so no injustice arose to Mr and Mrs Knight from that.

The Ombudsman also said that he could not conclude that the maladministration caused the Knights outrage that was separate from their strongly-held opposition to the use of the site by its owners or organisers of events which have taken place there.

Date Updated: 30/07/09