Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s new local development plan has designated land for housing that was once part of its green belt. We did not investigate the complaint further, because we are unlikely to achieve a different or meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to allocate an area of open land for housing use in the new local development plan.
2. Mr X does not claim to be directly affected by the decision, but fears that an important wildlife corridor will be lost to development. He is also unhappy that no weight was given to his objection that housing use of the site conflicted with restrictive covenants on the land.
3. Mr X wants the land removed from the local development plan as a site suitable for housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered information on its website about its new local development plan.
7. I gave the Council and Mr X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Local development plans

8. The planning system in England is ‘plan-led’. This means councils should determine applications in accordance with the local development plan (LDP), unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
10. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
11. Most councils have LDPs that set out policy and guidance on how planning decisions are assessed in their areas.
12. There are five stages to produce an LDP, and these are:
• Gathering information – A notice is placed in the local press and the public are invited to submit comments about what the plan should include.
• The Issues Paper – This is published to promote debate about suggestions that have been made about what the plan should include. There is a 14-week public consultation period for comments.
• The draft LDP – The Council sets out its preferred policies and land designations in a draft document and an 8-week public consultation period is allowed for formal objections.
• Independent Examination – The draft LDP including any revisions resulting from consultation is examined by the Planning Inspectorate. An Inspector assesses the proposed plan, the evidence the Council relied on and consultation responses/objections. In most cases, there are public hearings to allow comments and representations. The Inspector issues a report with recommendations for modifications and to state whether the Council can adopt the proposed plan. The Council must publish the Inspector’s recommendations on its website.
• LDP adoption – An Adoption Notice is published in the local press. The Inspector’s report along with the evidence produced by the process is considered by the Council, who vote on whether to adopt the plan and bring it into force. If the Council approves the LDP, it must publish an adoption statement on its website.

What happened

13. Mr X lives on a housing estate that is near green belt land. As part of its LDP process, the Council removed the green belt designation of the land and proposed it suitable for housing use.
14. The LDP was examined by the Planning Inspectorate and adopted by the Council last year.
15. Mr X is concerned that:
• the process failed to take account of restrictive covenants;
• other residents might not have understood or had an adequate opportunity to comment; and
• development of the site will be harmful to wildlife.
16. Mr X says he and others are affected because he walks on the site.

My findings

17. I decided not investigate Mr X’s complaint further, because:
• Mr X lives some distance from the site, and is unlikely to be directly affected by development on it. His complaint is about the Council’s LDP, which affects all or most of the people in his area;
• the LDP was adopted after consideration and a report by a Planning Inspector, whose decisions are not within our remit. Any concerns about the lawfulness of the emerging plan, could and should have been put to the Inspector;
• the public had several opportunities to voice concerns and objections during the LDP process. We are not an appeal body on local plan making decisions and cannot make judgements on the merits of decisions made during that process;
• restrictive covenants limit private rights over land and are not planning considerations. Because of this, no weight can be given to them in planning decisions. They are irrelevant for the purposes of plan-making and planning decisions. Those that benefit from restrictive covenants may take action to enforce them in the civil courts;
• Mr X would like us to recommend removal of the site from the Council’s housing allocation list on the LDP. This is not an outcome we can achieve. Only the high court can quash decisions, but otherwise, changes to LDPs have to go through the process set out above;
• Mr X is concerned that wildlife will be affected by development of the site. The impact of development on wildlife is likely to be a key consideration in any planning application decision. It might be that if/when it considers future planning applications, the Council may require onsite features to require open spaces or footpaths that may be used by walkers, protect wildlife or money/land to offset bio-diversity loss and provide improvements elsewhere.
• Mr X complains about how other people might have been affected, but we can only consider complaints from individuals or their chosen representatives.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I ended my investigation because further investigation is unlikely to result in a meaningful or different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman