Summary: Mr B has complained about the Council’s running of an agricultural site next to his home. The Ombudsman has no found fault on the part of the Council, aside from its delay in responding to his complaint, for which it has already apologised.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council has failed to properly administer an agricultural site next to his home which is under its control. He says the operator has used the site to store and cut wood. The noise of sawing and splitting of logs and the use of heavy machinery to move logs at weekends has affected his enjoyment of his home. There has also been damage to the roadside verges and access track, and excessive mud on the track, which Mr B and the Council jointly maintain. Moreover, despite his complaints, the Council has allowed the continued storage of timber on the site, part of which is also a scheduled monument from WWII.
2. He complains that the Council failed to properly administer another site nearby which the operator used to store and cut timber. Despite the Ombudsman finding fault in the Council’s management of that site, it then allowed the operator to carry out the same activities on the next-door site without planning permission.
3. He also complains that the Council delayed in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Mr B’s complaints that the Council let the operator use the next-door site to cut and store wood without seeking planning permission, its response to his complaints about nuisance from the site, the continuing storage of wood on the site, and the delay in responding to his complaints.
5. For the reasons set out in the final section of this statement, I have not investigated other parts of this complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)
8. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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

9. I have considered Mr B’s written complaint and supporting papers and spoken with him. I have considered the previous complaint from a third party about the nearby site and the planning papers relating to both sites. I have also sent Mr B and the Council a draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. In 2015, Mr B bought his present home close to agricultural land owned by the County Council (site A).
11. The Council also owns agricultural land (site B) around a mile away which it let to an individual (the operator) who used the land to operate a wood-cutting business. The operator also used part of site A to store and periodically cut wood. Mr B says he had had concerns about noise and nuisance from site A but had not wished to complain as he had only recently moved to the area.
12. A resident living next to site B complained to the County Council about noise from the wood-cutting business. They then complained to the Ombudsman who found that the Council had granted a tenancy without going through the correct process and had failed to act on breaches of the tenancy. As a result, the operator was able to obtain a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development which meant that the existing use was authorised. The operator was also in a stronger position to claim that the tenancy was a business tenancy, and therefore more difficult to evict.
13. The Council agreed to try to persuade the operator to vacate site B and to move the wood yard to another Council-owned site and, if that did not prove successful, to explore the legal options open to it to evict the operator. The Ombudsman considered this a suitable response but was not a party to the Council’s choice of site.
14. In the event, the Council decided to sell site A to the operator and to allow him to operate his wood-cutting business from there. However, this would be subject to the District Council, as Local Planning Authority, granting planning permission.
15. The County Council applied for planning permission to relocate the wood yard from site B to site A. The District Council consulted neighbours and statutory consultees and prepared a detailed report on the application. This recommended refusal due to the impact on the scheduled monument and the nearby Broads Authority. The District Council’s Development Control Committee then resolved to refuse planning permission.

My assessment

16. There is a great deal of detail in the correspondence between Mr B and the Council and Mr B has raised many questions about the Council’s actions. It is for the Ombudsman to consider if there has been administrative fault on the part of the Council and whether this has caused Mr B injustice. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s task to answer every question that Mr B may have about these events.

Use of the land without planning permission

17. Mr B has complained that the Council let the operator use the site A to cut and store wood without seeking planning permission.
18. The Council has explained that it was aware that there was some activity of this nature on site. However, such a use is not in itself illegal and it had received no complaints from neighbours about this use.
19. I see no fault here. Whether or not the degree and nature of activity on the site was consistent with agricultural use, I do not consider that the Council was at fault in not in not applying for planning permission for a change of use given that the scale of activity had not been the source of any complaints. If Mr B had concerns about noise and/or odours from the site or if he considered that there was a breach of planning control, he could have complained to the County Council as the site owner, or to the District Council, as the Local Planning Authority.

Response to complaints about nuisance

20. Mr B has complained about the nuisance from the activity on the site.

Mr B first complained in December 2017. In January 2018, the Council asked the operator to cease activity on site A and remove the wood chips.

I consider that the Council responded promptly to Mr B’s concerns and I see no fault in the way it responded to him.

Continuing storage on site

21. Mr B considers that the Council should have required the operator to remove the logs from the site because they are damaging a scheduled monument.
22. The Council has explained that the operator was not storing logs on areas where there were archaeological remains and so they were not causing damage. Given this and given that the Council was awaiting the outcome of the planning application, I see no reason to question the Council’s actions in this regard.
23. As planning permission has now been refused, it is for the District Council to decide whether it is expedient to require the removal of the logs from the land.

Complaint response

24. Mr B has complained about delay responding to his complaint.
25. The Council has accepted that there was a significant delay and has apologised for this. I see no grounds to seek a remedy beyond the apology already given.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have closed my investigation into Mr B’s. I have found no fault in the Council’s actions aside from the delay in responding to Mr B’s complaint, and the apology given for this is a suitable remedy for that delay.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

Incorrect information

27. Mr B says that the Council has made incorrect statements about the use of site A in support of the planning application for the change of use.
28. I have not investigated Mr B’s complaints about alleged inaccurate information submitted in support of the planning application.
29. It was for the District Council to consider any information provided in support of or objecting to the application and to seek any clarification it required. In the event, the District Council refused planning permission. So, whether or not Mr B disagrees with the information the County Council provided in support of the application, this has not caused him injustice.

Failure to charge the operator rent

30. Mr B complains that the Council has not charged the site operator appropriate rent to use site A, thereby depriving him and other Council Tax payers of revenue against the public interest. He has also suggested that there are “rumours” about the way the lease was transferred.
31. I have not investigated Mr B’s complaint about the rent for site A because I do not consider that this affects him more than any other Council Tax payer. This matter is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
32. As to the “rumours” about the transfer of the lease, if Mr B has any evidence of alleged wrongdoing, it is open to him to report this to the appropriate authorities. However, given that the District Council has refused planning permission for the change of use, and the site cannot be used for wood cutting, I see no reason for the Ombudsman to consider this matter further.

Allowing wrongful use of site B

33. Mr B complains that the Council wrongly allowed the operator to use site B for a wood-cutting business.
34. I have not investigated this matter because the wood-cutting activity on site B had no impact on Mr B and caused him no injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman