Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has conducted a ‘call for sites’ exercise as part of its Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault has not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice, and the Planning Inspectorate will consider the soundness of the Local Development Plan review in the future.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has not completed its ‘call for sites’ exercise in an objective way. He thinks the classification of one particular site as suitable for development will have a cataclysmic impact on infrastructure, which his village will not be able to cope with.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• any alleged fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I appreciate Mr X has concerns that a site in his village has been classified as suitable for development.
5. But the Council has explained the ‘call for sites’ exercise is part of its Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), which in turn contributes to the evidence base to inform its Local Development Plan review. The HELAA tests whether there is enough land to meet local housing and economic needs, and where this might be located. As such, the call for sites is a relatively basic assessment of the land put forward, based on national policy and broad considerations such as flood risk, heritage assets and nationally protected sites. But the identification of sites with development potential in the HELAA does not automatically mean they will be allocated for development in the Local Development Plan review. Nor does it mean planning permission will definitely be granted if an application were to be submitted.
6. I therefore do not see that any faults in the call for sites exercise have caused Mr X a significant personal injustice at the present time.
7. Furthermore, Local Plans are subject to statutory procedures for public consultation and independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate before they can be adopted. The examination will assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and if it is sound. The Inspector will consider the evidence provided by the Council to support the plan and any representations which have been put forward by local people and other interested parties. Therefore, if the Council proceeds with allocating a particular site for development in its Local Development Plan review, Mr X may raise any concerns with the Planning Inspectorate. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused him a significant personal injustice, and the Planning Inspectorate will be better placed to consider any concerns about land allocations in the Local Development Plan review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman