Summary: Mr Z complained about a planning matter. He says the Council has included an area of land in an adopted local development plan which is incompatible with national planning policy. Mr Z wants the Council to remove the site from the plan. However, we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. For that reason, we cannot tell the Council to remove the site from the plan as we have no power to question the merits of a properly made decision. Further, we do not consider Mr Z has suffered serious loss, harm or distress by reason of any fault by the Council. For these reasons, we are discontinuing our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr Z, is unhappy the Council has included a site close to his home in an adopted local development plan following his objections. Mr Z considers inclusion of the site in the local plan may result in noise and loss of character and value, both in financial terms to his property and conservation to the area.
2. As a desired outcome, Mr Z wants the Council to remove the site from the adopted local plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

4. 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

5. I have reviewed Mr Z’s complaint to the Council and Ombudsman. I have also had regard to the responses of the Council, applicable law and policy. Both Mr Z and the Council commented on a draft of my decision. I considered both sets of comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My findings

Background and legislative framework

6. The Localism Act 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework require strategic planning priorities to be properly coordinated and clearly reflected in local development plans.

Local development plans (LPDs)

7. The planning system in England is ‘plan-led’. This means councils should determine applications in accordance with the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not. Development plans set out how an area should look in the future by deciding the type and scale of development and where buildings should be allowed.
8. Local development plans are subject to statutory procedures for public consultation and inspection by the Planning Inspectorate before they can be adopted by the authority. Most councils have LDPs that set out policy and guidance on how planning decisions are assessed in their areas.

What happened

9. In September 2020, the Council approved the adoption of a local development plan which encompassed a number of sites including the one referenced by Mr Z. This followed a review by the Planning Inspectorate which judged the plan legally compliant with national planning policy.
10. In the first instance, a complaint was made by Mr Z’s local Parish Council that the adoption of the site in the local development plan was inconsistent with national policy requirements. Further, it said there was a lack of consultation by the Council or an explanation as to why the site in question had been chosen for inclusion within the plan. However, the Council said the plan was consistent with national policy and had been approved by the Planning Inspectorate which acts for and on behalf of the Secretary of State.
11. Mr Z then complained to the Council directly. The Council reiterated its overriding position that the local development plan had been found to be sound by the Planning Inspectorate.

My assessment

12. In accordance with s26A of the Local Government Act 1974, the Ombudsman is required to only accept complaints made by someone who has claimed to have suffered a significant and personal injustice. This means the complainant must show a casual link between any fault and them personally suffering serious loss, harm of distress. It is usually not enough for the complainant to complain about a secondary impact on a wider group and a consequence which is speculative.
13. In my view, any injustice to Mr Z is, on the face it, speculative. This is because inclusion of a site in a local development plan does not guarantee a developer will submit a planning application for development of the land. Nor does it mean the Council will approve the planning application once it has been through the formal planning process. It is also possible that any planning application for development could be approved subject to conditions to protect residential amenity. However, any injustice is hypothetical at this stage and I cannot provide a remedy for this.
14. In any event, the law says I cannot question the merits of a decision by the Council where it has been taken without fault. The Planning Inspectorate judged the local plan compliant with national planning frameworks and on that basis, I do not consider that I am likely to find fault in how the Council considered and adopted the local plan. Mr Z has said he wants the Council to remove the site from the local development plan. However, as I am unlikely to find fault, I cannot achieve the outcome Mr Z wants. I am therefore discontinuing my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I am discontinuing my investigation because I do not consider Mr Z has suffered serious loss, harm or distress because of any potential fault by the Council. Further, I cannot achieve the outcome he wants because I am unlikely to find fault and I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to adopt the plan without fault. I have therefore discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman