Local Government Ombudsman

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

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Planning : : Planning archive 2005-06 : : North Shropshire District Council (05B00163)

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

North Shropshire District Council (05B00163)

Planning applications                Maladministration causing injustice

29 March 2006

‘Mr and Mrs Smith’ (not their real names for legal reasons) live next door to a development site on which the developer applied to build two semi-detached houses. The application was recommended for refusal because of the impact on Mr and Mrs Smith’s bungalow. Members of the Committee made a site visit and voted to refuse the application. They indicated that they would be willing to approve an application for smaller houses on a larger site.

The Council received a second application. It was for two identical-sized houses, which had been moved one metre further away from Mr and Mrs Smith’s property. Officers did not think this application was materially different from the previous one and recommended it for refusal. The Committee voted to approve it. The decision was deferred to the next meeting to enable officers to draw up a list of conditions and a statement to explain why the Committee had determined the application against the officers’ recommendation. Some Members did so because they believed the development would provide affordable housing suitable for first time buyers, although one of the properties was subsequently marketed for £210,000. The Ombudsman took the view that the Committee decision was flawed because these Members took an inapplicable and therefore irrelevant consideration into account.

At the next meeting the Council’s Head of Democratic and Legal Services provided a draft statement but indicated that Members should find stronger reasons for their decision than he had been able to. However, Members adopted the draft statement without debate. The Ombudsman took the view that Members did not give adequate consideration to this point.

The applicant then applied to vary some of the conditions that had been imposed on the development. The Ombudsman did not find any fault in the way this was considered.

The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should pay Mr and Mrs Smith £5,000 compensation for having to live next to a more dominant development that should have been permitted, and for their frustrations, worry, and time and trouble spent in pursuing their complaint with the Council and with the Ombudsman. It should also review its procedures to ensure that, as far as possible, the maladministration identified does not recur.

Date Published: 30/07/09