Harrogate Borough Council (05C15424)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

14 December 2006

A Harrogate Councillor, who should have declared an interest and left a meeting, instead stayed and used his casting vote to give a fellow Councillor and friend outline planning permission in breach of six material planning policies. Other Councillors from the same political party at Harrogate Borough Council voted for the application despite strong recommendations from Council officers that it should be refused. The Councillors could give no valid planning reasons for their decisions. This was maladministration says the Ombudsman, who took the unusual step of naming the Councillors involved.

‘Mr and Mrs Miles’ (not their real names for legal reasons) complained that the Council didn’t take enforcement action to require Councillor Atkinson to remove a caravan from her land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and about its decision to grant her outline planning permission for a house in the caravan’s place.

The Ombudsman criticised Councillor Simms, then Chairman of the Area Planning Committee, for failing to declare an interest and for failing to withdraw from dealing with the application. He was known to be a friend of Councillor Atkinson and her husband. Church functions, political events, village gatherings and mutual friends brought the two families together, on average, once a fortnight.

The Code of Conduct, which all councillors agree to abide by, says that a councillor must not use their position “…to improperly confer on or secure for himself or anyone else any advantage or disadvantage…” The Code also says that a councillor must not take part in a meeting if they have a prejudicial interest. A prejudicial interest is “…one that a member of the public with knowledge of the facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the councillor’s judgement of the public interest.”’ Councillors who belong to a political group must declare a personal interest in any planning application by a member of the same political group. A councillor who only has a personal interest can take part in a meeting and vote.

The Council’s officers strongly recommended that Councillor Atkinson’s application should be refused as it was contrary to national and local policies and could set a precedent for inappropriate development in an area of outstanding natural beauty. At the two meetings of the Area Planning Committee that dealt with Councillor Atkinson’s application, the vote on whether to grant permission was tied. in each case the three Councillors who voted to approve the application were from the same political party as Councillor Atkinson. Of the three who voted against, one was also from the same political party (a different councillor on each occasion) and two were from other parties. Councillor Simms used his casting vote both times to approve the application. If he had followed the Code of Conduct and left the meeting the planning application would have been rejected by three votes to two.

The Ombudsman was also critical of the Council’s difficulties in getting to grips with whether the caravan was an established use and whether to take enforcement action. She commended the Council for its positive response to her criticisms, and for its willingness to take appropriate action on her recommendations that the Council should:

• consider taking action to cancel the planning permission - which may require an order of the court;
• take her report into account when considering any application to convert the outline planning permission to full permission;
• consider taking enforcement action to remove the kennels, sheds and other structures surrounding the caravan;
• investigate and pursue any council tax which might be due on the caravan; and
• formally thank Mr and Mrs Miles for bringing their concerns to the public arena.

Commenting on the case, the Ombudsman said “It is extremely rare to find Councillors using their position improperly. Cases like this do an enormous disservice to the whole of local government by providing fuel for the misapprehension that ‘they are all in it for themselves’. It is deeply regrettable for those Councillors who work selflessly in the best interests of their communities.I consider that the public interest is better served in this case by disclosing the identities of the Councillors concerned.”

Date Published: 30/01/09