Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of planning and environmental health matters for a nearby chemical works. This is because Mr B’s complaint about planning matters is late. Also, the information does not suggest the Council was at fault for saying it does not have the power to take action about the nuisance Mr B has reported.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains the Council has wrongly granted retrospective planning permission for a chemical works next to his home. Mr B also complains the Council recently granted planning permission for new houses to be built on land owned by the chemical works. In addition, Mr B complains the Council has not taken action about noise, odour and waste nuisance from the works. Mr B says this has affected the value and amenity of his home. Mr B would like the Council to close the works down.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr B and planning and environmental permit records available online.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mr B had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this statement. I have considered his comments.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council granted a certificate of lawful use for the chemical works in 2007. Mr B complained to us in 2021. Mr B has not complained to us within 12 months of becoming aware of this decision. So, this complaint is late and the information does not suggest there are good reasons for Mr B’s delay making this complaint. Mr B was aware of this application at the time and could have complained to us. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
8. Mr B also complains that the Council recently granted planning permission for houses to be built on land owned by the chemical works. The Council decided this application in 2017. Mr B put in comments to the Council about the application. So, Mr B has not complained to us within 12 months of becoming aware of this issue. Also, I do not consider there are good reasons for Mr B’s delay making this complaint. Mr B says he has been seriously unwell during recent years. But, I note Mr B put in comments to the Council about this application at the time.
9. Also, even if I accepted it was not reasonable for Mr C to have complained to us at the time because of his ill health, we would still not investigate. This is because Mr B has not claimed to have suffered a personal injustice because of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. Mr B is concerned about the impact on the health of any residents who move into these new houses because they are next to the chemical works. But, Mr B has not said he is personally affected by the decision.
10. Mr B also complains that the Council has not taken action about odour, noise and waste nuisance from the chemical works. The Council has told Mr B that it does not have the power to take action about these matters. This is because the site has a permit issued by the Environment Agency under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and associated regulations. The Council says the permit becomes the principal means of control and it is the Environment Agency which regulates use of the site. The Council says it cannot take action under statutory nuisance powers.
11. I have not seen any information to suggest the Council has got this wrong. The business is on the Environment Agency’s public register. Mr B has provided information from the Environment Agency about the action it has taken regarding nuisance from the chemical works. The Council is correct to say the permit is the principal means of control for the site. So, the information does not suggest the Council was at fault for saying it cannot take enforcement action using statutory nuisance powers about the nuisance Mr B complains about.
12. In addition, Mr B complains the Council took six months to respond to his complaint about these matters. We would not normally start an investigation solely about a council’s handling of a complaint if we are not investigating the subject of the complaint. I find there are not good reasons to treat this complaint as an exception. This is because any injustice suffered by Mr B because of the Council’s delay is not serious enough to justify an investigation or the pursuit of a remedy by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because part of the complaint is late. Also, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman