Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to consult the Environment Agency on what he says is a major planning application. He says the owner of the site illegally discharged thousands of litres of effluent from a sewerage treatment planning into a seasonally dry stream.

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.

(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. Mr X says the Council failed to follow:

“Town and Country Planning, (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Schedule 4- Consultations before the grant of permission:

Major development that does not use the services of a sewerage undertaker for the disposal of sewage - Consultee - Environment Agency”.

6. The Council received an application to install an underground water treatment plant with associated works.
7. The Town and Country Planning Act states major development means development involving any one or more of the following—

(a) the winning and working of minerals or the use of land for mineral-working deposits.

(b) waste development;

(c) the provision of dwellinghouses where —

(i) the number of dwellinghouses to be provided is 10 or more; or

(ii) the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub-paragraph (c)(i);

(d) the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or

(e) development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more;

8. The application was for standalone works on a larger major development.
9. The Council recognises the application relates to a larger, major development. However, it considers a treatment plant is an acceptable solution which is subject to all necessary permissions and consents which are not part of the planning system.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view. However, our role is to consider whether administrative fault has taken place. The Council has decided the application for a discrete part of a wider site is not a major development. This is a decision, as local planning authority that it is entitled to make.
11. The Council has also correctly advised Mr X that comments made by a consultee on a planning application does not automatically mean they must be consulted again on a later stand-alone planning application.
12. I understand Mr X is concerned about the illegal discharge of effluent from the site. However, he should report such matters to the Environment Agency who will decide if action against the site owner is necessary.
13. The law says the Ombudsman can look at the Council’s decision-making process, but we cannot say if a decision is right or wrong. The Council should take account of law, policy, relevant evidence and information. If it has followed those steps, we cannot find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has explained why it does not consider the stand-alone application for a water treatment plant. As Local Planning Authority, this a decision it is entitled to make. We do not consider there is enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman