Local Government Ombudsman

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

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Planning : : Planning archive 2006-07 : : Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (04C07540)

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

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (04C07540)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

02 November 2006

‘Mr Carling’ (not his real name for legal reasons) complained about the Council’s grant of outline planning permission for a large detached house between two listed buildings within a conservation area. Outline approval established that a property could be built subject to specified ‘reserved matters’ that must be submitted for separate, later approval. The decision that a large detached house should be allowed on the site was recommended by a planning officer and taken by a planning team leader using delegated powers.

The Ombudsman finds that the decision was flawed by significant maladministration in a number of respects. The Council:

  • actively encouraged the applicant to take action that could not possibly meet legal requirements;
  • issued a decision notice knowing that people owning land forming part of the application had not had the notice required;
  • failed to address its responsibility to ‘enhance and preserve the special nature of the conservation area’;
  • failed to take into account relevant considerations and to disregard irrelevant matters;
  • failed to consult its Conservation and Design Section as required by its own guidance;
  • failed to address the possible implications between the outline application and another application for an extension to an existing property adjoining the site; and
  • placed a condition on the approval that (as the Council now accepts) could not have any ‘reasonable prospect’ of being fulfilled and was contrary to Government guidance.

A direct consequence of the haste in which the decision notice was issued was that the Councillors representing the area lost the opportunity to refer the application to the Area Planning Committee for approval. This meant that there was no open debate or public consideration of crucial aspects of the judgements to be made on the application.

Mr Carling is a resident of the conservation area who wants to see its special character enhanced and preserved, and is also the owner of a listed building the setting of which is, in his view and that of the Council’s specialist staff, affected by residential development on the site. Both these interests were adversely affected by the lack of open debate and lack of thorough consideration of these issues.

The Ombudsman finds that the nature and extent of the maladministration calls into question the decision to approve the outline application. She recommends the Council to take appropriate independent advice and, if the advice is that residential development would detract from the special qualities of the conservation area or could not be accommodated without detracting from the setting of a listed building, then the planning approval should be revoked.

The Council should also pay Mr Carling £500 to compensate him for his time, trouble and distress.

The Ombudsman says: “In future the Council must abide by law, guidance and its own policies and delegation scheme when dealing with any planning application. When assessing applications for development in a conservation area or which could affect a listed building, the Council must involve its Conservation and Design Section and consult interested groups as appropriate.”

Date Published: 03/02/09