North Somerset Council (05B05781, 06B00337)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

16 November 2006

‘Mr Sheldon’ and ‘Mr Aston’ (not their real names for legal reasons) live near each other in the same street. They complained that the Council gave planning permission for a large detached house in the garden of Mr Sheldon’s neighbour. They say the decision taken by officers under delegated powers was not dealt with on its merits and the objections raised by local residents were ignored.

Mr Sheldon and Mr Aston raised their concerns with local councillors and were told that planning officers were minded to refuse the application but that, if it was recommended for approval, the application would go to the Planning Committee to determine as it was a contentious application. The councillors considered the application was likely to be refused because of similar decisions taken about infill development in the area. If the application was considered by Committee, objectors would then be able to present their concerns. The application was, in fact, approved by officers under delegated authority.

The Ombudsman found that there was a misunderstanding between officers and councillors as to what constituted a controversial application, and that important discussions between officers and councillor about the application were not recorded. This meant that the Council’s procedure for councillors to request an application to be considered by the Planning Committee was not followed. This led to the application being determined under officers’ delegated authority, denying Mr Sheldon and Mr Aston the opportunity to present their objections in person to the Planning Committee. The Ombudsman decided that it was likely that councillors would have refused the application but, as the applicant could have appealed against the Council’s refusal, it was not possible to conclude whether the Council’s decision would have been upheld or whether the decision on the application might have been different.

The Ombudsman finds that, as there is some distance between the new development and Mr Sheldon’s house, and even further between it and Mr Aston’s home, that there is no significant impact on their amenity. Nonetheless he finds maladministration by the Council causing injustice to the complainants for their sense of outrage at being misled into believing that either the application would be refused, or that they would at least have the opportunity to put their objections to the Planning Committee.

He recommends the Council to pay each complainant £1,000 and review its procedures to ensure the confusion between councillors and officers does not recur.

Date Published: 30/01/09