Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application for a field shelter for horses. He says the Council:
• Failed to tell him about the planning application.
• Ignored his objections; and
• Failed to correctly apply its policy on Equestrian Related Development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.
6. For major development, councils must publicise the application by:
• a local newspaper advertisement; and either
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
7. For all other applications, including minor developments, councils must publicise by either:
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
8. As well as regulatory minimum requirements, councils must also produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the council’s policy on how it will communicate with the public when it carries out its functions. In their SCI policy, councils may commit to do more than the minimum legal requirements, for example, to put up a site notice and to serve notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
9. The Council says it will send letters to neighbouring properties and display site notices where required.
10. The Council has provided photographic evidence that a visible site notice was placed near the application site. This meets the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for publicising planning applications.
11. I understand Mr X did not receive a letter about the planning application. However, the purpose of notifying people about planning applications is to enable them to comment on the proposal. In this case Mr X made the Council aware of his objections and therefore I cannot see any injustice caused to him by the Council’s failure to send him a letter. Therefore we will not investigate this point.
12. Mr X says the Council ignored his objections to the proposal. However, the planning officer’s report references the objections received from Mr X.
13. The purpose of the planning officer’s report is not only to help the council decide on the application. It is also to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed.
14. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed on the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.
15. The planning officer’s report includes the relevant national and local planning policies that apply to the application. It also includes a summary of Mr X’s objections and explains why the officer considers the proposal is acceptable.
16. I understand Mr X believes the Council has failed to correctly apply its policy on Equestrian Related Development.
17. However, the report sets out a summary of the policy. It concludes the scale and design of the development is modest and is a typical design for equestrian use. It also acknowledges there is not enough screening on the site. Therefore, a condition has been added to the planning permission to provide additional planting to provide suitable screen to maintain the rural landscape.
18. Also, the Council confirms easements over the site, such as access to a water pipe, are not material planning considerations. If Mr X believes his neighbour has interfered with a property easement, it is for him to seek his own legal advice. This is a civil matter between him and his neighbour and not something for the Council to resolve.
19. Mr X says the location of the field shelter close to his property is causing an odour nuisance.
20. The planning officer’s report shows the Council considered Mr X’s objection on the grounds of odour. It states the application is for a field shelter for one pony. However, it acknowledges it is large for one animal and has therefore placed a condition on the planning permission to limit the use to a maximum of two ponies.
21. It notes the planning agent confirmed the waste is stored in within the shelter in a wheelie bin and emptied daily. The applicant also offered to move the wheelie bin further away from Mr X’s property. The Council secured this by adding a condition to the planning permission.
22. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application to justify an investigation.
23. Mr X complains about an odour nuisance from liquid waste. However, if he believes his neighbour is causing a statutory odour nuisance, he can report this to the Council’s environmental health team for investigation. If a statutory nuisance is found, the Council can issue an Abatement Notice.

Back to top

Final decision

24. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We do not consider he suffered a significant personal injustice because the Council displayed a site notice instead of writing to him personally about the planning application.
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman