Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Other categories : : Other categories archive 2006-07 : : Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (05B12397, 05B13221)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (05B12397, 05B13221)

Planning enforcement & Drainage

Maladministration causing injustice

27 September 2006

‘Mr Pardew’ and ‘Mr Lyall’ (not their real names for legal reasons) complained that the Council failed to take action in respect of a neighbouring development that does not have the benefit of planning permission. They said that because a planning application had not been submitted they had been unable to submit objections and concerns about the development. They also complained that the Council has failed to provide them with information about its actions in relation to this matter despite saying it would do so.

Mr Pardew and Mr Lyall are concerned about the effect of the development on a septic tank located on the neighbouring land which serves both their properties. They said that any development could threaten the integrity of the septic tank. They were worried not only about damage to the septic tank as a result of any development, but also about access in the future for any maintenance works.

The Ombudsman found that although the Council investigated the alleged breach of planning control in a timely manner, and came to a decision not to take formal enforcement action, it failed to communicate its decision to either the property owner or the complainants. This failure, compounded by the Council’s further failure to respond to Mr Pardew’s and Mr Lyall’s formal complaints, caused uncertainty for a period of over 18 months. The Ombudsman found the Council’s failure to provide a clear explanation of its actions to be maladministration. However, he has not criticised the merits of the Council’s decision in relation to planning matters.

The Ombudsman said that the complaints had, “exposed fundamental weaknesses in the Council’s planning enforcement function … and in the Council’s arrangements for handling complaints, at least in the planning service.”

The Council has agreed to apologise and pay each complaint £250 for their time and trouble in pursuing their complaints. It has also agreed to review its resources in respect of planning enforcement to prevent, as far as possible, similar problems occurring in the future; and the Council will review its complaints handling arrangements to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Date Updated: 03/02/09