Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered applications for an equestrian arena and a report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council:
• mishandled planning applications for an equestrian arena (the arena) near his home; and
• refused to act against a breach of planning control.
2. He wants the Council to:
• investigate and regularise the unauthorised livery yard; and
• reconsider the retrospective planning application for the arena

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complains the Council has approved a retrospective planning application for an equestrian arena in the green belt near his home. He says the Council failed to prove the development had very special circumstances as required by policy.
7. The Council previously refused an application for an arena. The neighbour appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, but the appeal was dismissed. The Planning Officer report on the refused application states:

“Discussions have also taken place with the applicant regarding the possibility of applying a coloured paint to the railings that surround the arena to help blend them in with their surroundings, however no suitable shade of colour has been provided by the applicant.”

8. It also says:

“Given the size and position of the proposed arena, and in the absence of an adequate landscape scheme and suitable railing to the perimeter of the arena, the development is not considered acceptable.”

9. The neighbour put in a new retrospective application for the arena. This included an ecological report and a landscape plan.
10. The Council publicised the application and received several objections, including those from Mr Y. The objections included:
• increase in road traffic
• no facilities at the livery yard or at the arena for use by visitors which will cause an increase in development
• impact on the rural character of the area because of the materials used as part of the development
• increase of horse arenas in the area
• noise disturbance; and
• it is not clear whether the arena is intended for commercial or personal use.
11. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This included details of the relevant local and national policies including those referring to the green belt:

“S13 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate development but says an exception to this are appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.”

“Policy DM12 states that new buildings and facilities associated with sport or recreation provision are appropriate development in the Green Belt provided they are directly related to and subsidiary to the main outdoor use, are of a scale and size proportionate to the sporting or recreation use, are sensitively designed, and minimise any harm to the openness of the Green Belt.”

“Policy DM52 indicates that equestrian development will be permitted provided it does not harm the landscape character of the area; and new buildings, shelters or arenas are located near existing farmsteads or groups of buildings. Developments in open countryside will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they are sited and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.”

12. The report also included a summary of the objections received.
13. It notes the applicant has agreed to paint the arena railing to help it blend into the area. The Officer considered the landscape plan will help screen and soften the visual appearance which will in turn minimise the overall appearance of the arena. They concluded this will result in a less obtrusive development.
14. The application was considered by the Council’s planning committee. A local resident spoke at the committee meeting as did a local councillor. Having heard from those objecting to the application and those in support, and having considered the Planning Officer’s report, the committee decided to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

15. We expect councils to provide reasons for their decisions on material issues. We also expect sufficient detail so that we can understand the decisions reached. We cannot criticise a council if it can show it followed a proper decision-making process, considered the key material issues, and made its decision on rational grounds. The report does not refer to very special circumstances. However, from the information I have seen it is evident the Council was aware of the detail of the retrospective application and considered the relevant policies and the objections received. It explains why the Council considers the application overcomes the objections and is satisfied the proposal is acceptable.
16. Mr Y also complains the Council has failed to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control at an unauthorised livery yard.
17. In response to my enquiries, the Council has confirmed it investigated the report of a breach of planning control. It invited the owner to put in a retrospective application to regularise the matter. However, it has not received an application. The Council says the situation at the livery yard remains unauthorised. However, it does not consider the harm caused is so significant and therefore has decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action. This is a decision it is entitled to take.
18. I understand Mr Y is concerned that his neighbour will try to develop their property further. However, the Council can only consider the applications as they are presented, they cannot consider what action the applicant may or may not decide to take in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application for the arena and the report of a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman