Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the planning enforcement action the Council took regarding activities at Mr Q’s airfield. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that South Holland District Council started planning enforcement action about unauthorised activities at his airfield. He said the Council did not know or fully understand the Planning Inspector’s decision on an appeal he made several years ago. Mr Q said he incurred unnecessary legal costs as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. I discussed the complaint with Mr Q and considered the information he provided in response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. A planning authority must consider what, if anything, to do once it is aware of a breach of planning approval.
5. South Holland District Council is a planning authority.

What happened

6. Mr Q runs an airfield. Several years ago he won an appeal to the Planning Inspector regarding the activities he can operate at the airfield.
7. In 2019 the Council received two complaints about activities at the airfield. The Council served Mr Q with a Planning Contravention Notice requiring him to provide information about the activities. Mr Q responded twice to the Council’s request for information, and then sought legal advice.
8. The Council sought its own advice from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about the activities on the airfield. It did so because it did not have the expertise to know whether the activities complained of fell within the Planning Inspector’s decision. The Council also sought advice from its own legal team and independent legal advisers. It decided the activities on Mr Q’s airfield were not a breach of planning control. It did not take any further action.
9. Mr Q is unhappy the Council started enforcement action against him. He believes Council officers did not know or fully understand the Planning Inspector’s decision. He said this lack of knowledge and understanding meant he incurred legal fees unnecessarily. The Council’s view is that Mr Q chose to get his own legal advice, and it did not affect the outcome of its investigation.

Analysis

10. We will not investigate this complaint.
11. I recognise the Planning Inspector decided Mr Q’s appeal several years ago. But the Planning Inspector’s decision did not mean the Council could ignore the complaints it received in 2019. The Council had to establish whether there was a breach of planning control. In this case, because of the nature of the complaints it received, the Council sought advice from the CAA as well as legal advice. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council for taking such action to determine whether there was a breach of planning control at Mr Q’s airfield.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman