Summary: Mr X has complained that the Council has failed to provide a brief relating to the work required to comply with the conditions attached to the planning permission for a detached house. There is no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. In 2018, the Council granted planning permission, subject to conditions, for a detached house. Mr X has complained that the Council has not provided the developer of the property a brief for the work needed to satisfy the archaeological planning conditions. He says this has delayed the start of the development and prevented the developer from being able to obtain quotations for the work. He also says it has hindered him from being able to do his job as an archaeologist.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information from Mr X and the Council including the Council’s response to my enquires.
5. A copy of this decision was sent in draft to Mr X and the Council. I have considered the comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2018, the Council received a planning application to build a detached dwelling. It considered the application and contacted Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) for its comments. Although it is the Council’s responsibility as the local planning authority to decide if a proposed development is acceptable, it will still consult third parties about some elements of an application, and it uses the professional services of LCC for archaeological matters. In this case, an officer from LCCs Historic Environment team responded and said that an archaeological evaluation for the site had revealed medieval and post medieval features and finds. Therefore, LCC recommended that if planning permission was granted it should be subject to conditions. LCC suggested three archaeological planning conditions for the development and said the applicant should contact it and it would prepare a brief for the work. The Council granted planning permission subject to conditions including those recommended by LCC.
7. Mr X is an archaeologist employed by the developer. In August 2018, he submitted a proposal to the Council to satisfy one of the planning conditions. The condition said that no development should take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The condition goes on to detail what the scheme should include. The Council sent the information to LCC for its comments. LCC responded and advised that it did not consider the information sufficient to meet the requirements of the planning condition. The Council sent Mr X LCC’s response and suggested he contact it to discuss the matter further and establish what was needed to meet the condition requirements.
8. Mr X says the Council has never provided him or the developer with a brief for the archaeological scheme and suspects this does not exist. He says this has prevented the developer from obtaining competitive quotations for the work and delayed the start of the development. Mr X also says this has hindered his work and says the Council should not impose planning conditions if it does not have a proper understanding of what is required.
9. I understand Mr X says the Council should provide a brief for the work required to satisfy the archaeological planning conditions. However, I cannot say the Council is at fault or that it is unreasonable it has referred him to LCC. There are many matters where a planning authority would need to seek expert advice to decide if a proposed development is acceptable and before discharging certain planning conditions. In this case, the Council consulted LCC as an archaeological expert and imposed planning conditions following LCC’s advice. Mr X says as it is the Council that will discharge the planning condition, it should be able to supply a brief for the work needed. However, the planning condition details what the archaeological scheme should include and the Council has given Mr X LCC’s response to the information he provided. It has also suggested he contact LCC on many occasions to confirm what is required. Therefore, I cannot say the Council is at fault.
10. In any event, even if it could be shown the Council should have provided a brief for the work required, I cannot say this has caused Mr X any significant injustice. It would be the developer that is impacted if he has been unable to get quotations for the archaeological work required or if there have been delays to the start of the development.
11. Mr X has also complained about the planning conditions and says the archaeological conditions are not precise or necessary. However, if the developer had concerns about the planning conditions he could have appealed or apply to vary the conditions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. There is no fault with how the Council has dealt with Mr X’s request to provide a brief relating to the work needed to satisfy a planning condition.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman