Summary: Mr B’s complained the Council failed to control activity on land near his home. He said the site was being used to store scrap metal and process waste. Mr B complained about the noise and impact on his view and said it has negatively affected his mental health. We have not found fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B’s complained the Council failed to control activity on land near his home. He said the site was being used to process building waste and store scrap metal. Mr B considered these breaches of planning control. He complained about the noise and impact on his view and said it has negatively affected his mental health.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
6. Mr B and the Council commented on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. A breach of planning control is defined in s.171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) as:
• the carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or
• failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.
8. When a council investigates an alleged breach of planning control, an important first step is for it to try to contact the owner or occupier of the site in question. (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2014, Enforcement and post-permission matters)
9. The council must decide whether:
• there is a breach of planning control and the degree of harm this causes;
• those responsible for any breach are receptive to taking action to remedy the breach. (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2014, Enforcement and post-permission matters)
10. Effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and councils should act proportionately when responding to suspected breaches of planning control. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019, National Planning Policy Framework)

Council policy

11. Lancashire County Council is responsible for regulating the development and use of land for mineral extraction, waste management and for its own operational development. The district councils are responsible for all other forms of planning control.
12. Enforcement responsibilities between the district councils and the County Council can be shared for some operations involving inert waste. The County Council decides who will take on responsibility for these types of breach in consultation with the district councils. 
13. The County Council will investigate any alleged breach of planning control about mineral extraction or waste management in Lancashire. It will also investigate alleged breaches of planning control associated with the County Council's own development sites. However, beyond informal action it has no powers to take enforcement against its own developments. If for some reason informal action did not resolve the matter, the case would be forwarded to the relevant district council. 
14. Where the source of the complaint is from a third-party the County Council will record and acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. It will investigate the complaint within 21 days and tell the complainant the result of the investigation within 28 days.
15. Before considering any possible future action, the investigation must find out whether there is a breach of planning control. Even if there is a breach, it may not be expedient to take enforcement action if the breach is minor. The County Council will decide whether the development is acceptable in principle and if anything needs to be done to bring it to a satisfactory standard. If it is not acceptable, the Council will decide what action is appropriate to prevent it continuing. 

What happened

16. Mr B lives in the countryside. Across a field about 75m from his home is the site he complains about. Mr B says the site is being used to process building waste and store scrap metal. Mr B says the site does not have planning permission for these activities.
17. In March 2020, Mr B told the Council the site was being used to process building waste and to store steel. He said the growing mound of waste was blocking his view. Mr B asked the Council not to pass on his name. The Council told Mr B it would visit the site, but the visit may be delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council asked him to let it know if the situation got worse. Mr B told the Council it needed to visit the site as soon as possible.
18. The Council visited the site in April 2020. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council could not enter the site and viewed it from outside. There was no activity at the site during the visit. The Council saw soil had been used to create a screen to one side of the site buildings. The Council could not see any evidence of large-scale waste processing.
19. The Council fed back to Mr B. It said it could not see any evidence of soil tipping or of substantial quantities of scrap being stored on the site. It said the only evidence of soil being used was to screen storage activities to the rear of the site.
20. Mr B said this screen blocked his view and scrap had been brought on to the site. He said the owner of the site did not have planning permission for this.
21. The Council contacted South Ribble Borough Council (SRBC). It shared Mr B’s concerns and suggested SRBC may want to visit the site. The Council told Mr B it had contacted SRBC about the matter and assured him his details would not be given to the site owner.
22. Mr B told the Council he was unhappy his details were shared with SRBC and said it would be its fault if he experienced bullying or intimidation. The Council gave Mr B information about its complaints procedure.
23. The Council visited the site in May 2020. It met the site owner and discussed the concerns about the use of the site.
24. The site owner told the Council he was storing scrap metal on the site temporarily because the price of steel dropped at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. He said he would sell the steel once the price had recovered. The Council told the owner he did not have planning permission to store steel and this should be temporary. The Council decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action against the storage of steel at the time, because the stockpile was not readily visible from outside the site and was not having a significant environmental impact.
25. The Council found demolition rubble was being crushed and screened on site. The Council told the owner he needed planning permission if he was bringing waste material on to the site to be processed. The Council told the site owner if he wanted to continue this activity, he needed to apply for planning permission.
26. The Council updated Mr B with its findings from the site visit.
27. The Council visited the site in August 2020 to check the situation and liaised with SRBC.

Complaint

28. In April 2020, Mr B complained the Council had not taken enforcement action against the owner of the site. He said his mental health was suffering because of the noise from the site and the impact on his view. He also complained the Council shared his name with SRBC which he had asked it not to do.
29. The Council sent Mr B its stage one complaint response in May 2020. The Council explained:
• it investigated his concerns about the site and found no evidence of waste processing or scrap metal storage it would be expedient to take enforcement action against;
• it had shared his information with SRBC because of cross-boundary planning matters. It confirmed SRBC had the same confidentiality rules, and no one had shared his details with third parties;
• the planning officer’s conduct was professional; and
• it was investigating his most recent concerns about the site.
30. Mr B was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and asked for it to escalate his complaint to stage two.
31. The Council responded in July 2020. It explained any joint investigation by the County and District Councils would not have been possible without sharing the nature and source of the complaint. The Council summarised its investigation into the site, its conclusions, and the actions it had taken. The Council told him it has seen some increase of activity at the site, was monitoring the storage of steel and seeking to regularise activities.

Analysis

32. When there is an alleged breach of planning control the Council should investigate and decide what action, if any, it should take.
33. When Mr B raised concerns with the Council about activities on the site, the Council began an investigation. The Council visited the site and met with the owner to discuss concerns. The Council’s first visit was slightly outside the timescales in its policy. I do not consider this delay to be fault. The delay was because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Council kept Mr B updated.
34. In May 2020, the Council decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision and I cannot question its merits.
35. The Council advised the owner he did not have planning permission to store steel on the site or process waste. The Council told the site owner to apply for planning permission if he wanted to continue these activities. Councils usually allow some time for a planning application to be made. The Council continued to monitor the situation.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman