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 : : Wansbeck DC (03C19108)

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

Wansbeck DC (03C19108)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

29 September 2005

 ‘Mr McDonald’ (not his real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council unreasonably granted planning permission for a house and garage on land behind his home, and that it misled him by saying that no development would be allowed on the land; failed to notify him of a subsequent application; permitted that application having refused his own application on the same plot; and approved the application without properly considering his amenity. Mr McDonald said that, as a result, he sold the land at much less than its true value and that the new development adversely affects his amenity and the value of his home.

The Ombudsman found that the Council offered Mr McDonald no advice on how to make his application acceptable, whereas the subsequent developer was given helpful advice on the basis of which his second application was approved. The Council was therefore inconsistent in its treatment of the two applicants. Mr McDonald was not notified of either of the new applications, and that was maladministration causing Mr McDonald an injustice from his lost opportunity to object to both applications. Despite the Council’s assertion that Mr McDonald’s amenity had been considered, the Ombudsman found no evidence that it had properly considered the impact of the new garage’s blank gable wall within 13 metres of Mr McDonald’s home. In general the Ombudsman found a catalogue of errors in dealing with the four applications referred to in the report, and in the Council’s record keeping and standard of work within the Planning Department. This was maladministration. The Ombudsman also found that the Development Control section was not properly resourced, but found no evidence that the case officer had discriminated against Mr McDonald deliberately.

The Council apologised to Mr McDonald for failing to inform him of the two subsequent applications and took some steps, which the Ombudsman has welcomed, to ensure that the same problems do not arise again. For example, the Development Control section would now be fully staffed  and have suitable administrative support. However the Ombudsman recommended that the Council should also compensate the complainant by reimbursing the cost of his outline planning application for the site in question, and instruct the District Valuer to value the land with the benefit of planning permission and reimburse Mr McDonald the difference between this value and the £2,000 he had obtained for the land when he sold it to the subsequent developer.

Date Published: 19/02/10