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 : : Rossendale Borough Council (05C00542, 05C08792)

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

Rossendale Borough Council (05C00542, 05C08792)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

31 October 2006

Two developers complained about long delays by the Council in completing legal agreements. Although Councillors had agreed that planning permission should be given, formal approvals could not be issued until the legal agreements were completed.

In one case the developer did not begin to pursue the agreement seriously until seven years after the Planning Committee said the application should be approved. However, the Council then caused unnecessary delay and gave misleading information between February 2004 and June 2005. As a result of changes in regional guidance and the Lancashire Structure Plan, the application was eventually reconsidered by the Development Control Committee and refused in July 2006.

In the second case, the Development Control Committee agreed that planning permission should be given in February 2005. Although all the issues relating to the legal agreement were resolved by May 2005, the Council did not complete the agreement. This application was also reconsidered and approved in July 2006.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the Council for delay and giving misleading information in dealing with the legal agreements. She recommends that the Council should pay £2,500 to the developer in the first case in recognition of the additional costs incurred in engaging professional advisors to pursue the matter. Because of the timescale involved, she does not consider that financial compensation is appropriate for the second developer.

The Planning Consultant employed by the first developer suggested that the company should also be compensated for loss of business revenue arising from the delay in commencing development. The Ombudsman does not agree. She points out that the company had a remedy available for such claimed injustice through its rights of appeal to the Secretary of State on the Council’s non-determination of the application.

The Ombudsman also recommends the Council to introduce a procedure to make sure that planning applications over eight weeks old are monitored and determined as quickly as possible.

Date Updated: 29/01/09