Colchester City Council (19 003 373)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 30 Jul 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission to a local sailing club. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission to a local sailing club.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
  1. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered:
    • Information provided by Mr X
    • Information provided by the Council including its responses to Mr X’s complaints
    • Mr X’s comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. A local sailing club applied for retrospective planning permission for 4 wooden planters on land which is part of a hard standing/frontage down to the sea. The frontage has village green status.
  1. The Council publicised the application. Mr X objected stating:
    • the planters have enclosed part of the village green
    • the planters have obstructed access to the village green; and
    • the planters encroach on the coastal path
  2. The case officer visited the site and prepared a report on the scheme. The report includes a summary of Mr X’s objections.
  3. The report says the Council accepts the beach area beyond the sailing club has village green status. But the sailing club states its frontage is not part of the land classed as village green. So, it is not clear whether the siting of the planters has the same status. The report also says the village green issue was considered as part of a previous planning application. And the planning committee was advised that village green status does not prevent the Council granting planning permission.
  4. The report also refers to chapter 26 of the Commons Act 2006 about village greens:

“Chapter 26 of the Commons Act 2006 (section 38) states that a person may not undertake such works on a village green or common land that has the effect of preventing or impeding access to or over the relevant land. If it is believed that such an offence as described above an application needs to be made to the Courts. This is evidence in support that it is not a Planning matter for consideration as part of this application and there are mechanisms in place if it is considered that the site is of a village green status. It is not controlled through the Planning System.”

  1. The case officer also addressed Mr X’s concerns about enclosure:

“the proposed planters are inside the current and approved rope link fence which is considered to already have formed an enclosure. It is also noted that there is an existing access point to the North of the site that is to be retained allowing easy access through the site. The planters are also low in scale and reversible, adding to the fact that they follow the line of an existing enclosure it is not considered to conflict with the Article 4 Direction to a point that would support a refusal.”

  1. The case officer recommended the application for approval. The Council agreed with the recommendation and the application was granted under its scheme of delegated authority.

Assessment

  1. It is clear from the case officer’s report that the council fully considered Mr X’s objections before it decided to grant planning permission. When recommending the application for approval, the officer was mindful of the Council’s policies and the site history.
  2. It is not for the Ombudsman to criticise what weight is given to the arguments put for or against a proposal, provided there is no administrative fault in how it considered the matter.
  3. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this application. Without fault, the Ombudsman has no powers to criticise the Council’s decision.
  4. Also, although it is clear Mr X feels strongly about protecting the village green, I am not persuaded that he has suffered a significant personal injustice, different to any other resident because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do I consider that Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice in this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings