Summary: Mr X complained the Council was not competent in the way it dealt with planning matters relating to industrial land near his home. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a recommendation for a remedy or any other meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council was not competent when it dealt with planning matters relating to an industrial site near his home.
2. Mr X said the Council showed a pattern of failure over several years, including:
• wasting public money;
• allowing damage to the environment; and
• failing to protect residential amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we are unlikely to find fault, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different or meaningful outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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

4. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
5. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

6. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
7. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
9. Planning applicants may appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in certain circumstances. Planning Inspectors act on behalf of a Government minister. They may consider appeals about:

• delay by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission;
• a decision to refuse planning permission;
• conditions placed on planning permission; or
• a planning enforcement notice.

10. It is possible to claim costs relating to appeals to the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspector may decide to award costs against a party to an appeal if that party has acted unreasonably. Unreasonable behaviour includes things like:
• failing to co-operate;
• missing procedural deadlines;
• failing to attend site visits or hearings; or
• providing incorrect or late information.
11. We have no powers to investigate decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate and would not normally investigate any matter it has decided.
12. Regulations require that proposals for certain public and private projects are assessed for the impact they might have on the environment to avoid, reduce or offset harmful effects.
13. When considering planning applications, councils have to screen proposals to consider whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is necessary.

What happened

14. Several years ago, a business that operates on land several hundreds of metres away from Mr X’s home applied for planning permission to extend their operation onto adjoining land.
15. The Council approved the application, but its decision was challenged in the High Court by way of judicial review. The Council signed a consent order, accepting it was at fault because it had not followed the correct EIA process. The court quashed its planning decision, awarded costs against the Council, and the application process began again.
16. The Council screened the application and decided an EIA was not necessary for the proposed development. The Council did not make its decision within planning time limits and because of the delay, the business appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.
17. The Planning Inspector considered the application and allowed the appeal, as there were no reasonable grounds to refuse it. The Planning Inspectorate also heard two further appeals for claims of costs against the Council, both from the applicant (the business) and an interested third party (a private individual who had taken part in the appeal). The Inspector found the Council had acted unreasonably and so awarded costs to the business, but not in relation to the appeal by the third party.
18. Mr X believes that because the Council has had to pay costs in relation to the Planning Inspectorate appeal and the High Court case, this shows the Council has wasted money and acted incompetently. He said that it had been involved for several years but had failed to prevent harm to the environment or protect residential amenities of those who lived nearby.

My findings

19. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
20. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice that we can remedy?
21. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
22. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
23. I should not investigate this complaint further, and my reasons are as follows:
• We investigate complaints against councils. The decision to allow the development was made by the Planning Inspectorate, which is not a body we can investigate.
• There is a statutory process to recover costs relating to planning appeals, and this process can take account of how councils behave during the planning application stage of the process. We are not an alternative route to claim planning related costs.
• Mr X believes the Council is at fault because it has wasted public money. It is unlikely that further investigation would result in a finding of fault. Questions about the good use of public money is a matter for the Council’s auditors, not the Ombudsman. The other issues Mr X identifies relate to planning considerations which fell within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I ended my investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a recommendation for a remedy for Mr X or any other meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman