Worcester City Council (04B07046)
Planning applications Maladministration causing injustice
19 July 2005
‘Mr Powell’ (not his real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council failed to notify him of amendments to plans for a bungalow next to his home. He says that the amendments worsen the development’s impact on him, and that it is more overbearing than the original proposal. He said that, if he had been consulted on the amended plans, he would have told the Council that he preferred the development originally proposed.
The Committee that considered the application decided that the development originally proposed harmed Mr Powell’s amenity to such an extent that it should not approve the plans as submitted. Instead it decided that the applicant should make amendments to the plans to improve things for Mr Powell. It delegated authority to the Head of Development Services to approve the plans subject to such amendments being made.
The wording of the Committee’s resolution, however, was not sufficiently specific to make clear the nature or degree of amendments the Committee considered to be necessary. That caused Mr Powell reasonable doubt about whether the reorientation of the development that officers ultimately approved was what the Committee intended.
In addition, the Council did not consider properly whether it should notify Mr Powell of the amendments to the plans. Its decision not to do so was improperly influenced by its desire to issue a decision on the application within the eight week target timescale. That was maladministration.
Nevertheless, in all the circumstances, the Ombudsman concluded he could not say that on the balance of probabilities things would have turned out better for Mr Powell if he had been consulted. But as a result of the Council’s maladministration, Mr Powell lost an opportunity to influence events which might, given the Committee’s view, have turned out better for him. It has also caused him time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
Date Published: 30/07/09