Local Government Ombudsman

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

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Planning : : Planning archive 2007-08 : : Forest Heath District Council (06A15080, 07A00517)

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

Forest Heath District Council (06A15080, 07A00517)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

18 March 2007

The way Forest Heath Council approved a planning application made by a councillor’s son has been criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman. He says: “The ill-considered reasons for going against the officers’ recommendation failed to address the policy objections and give the appearance of bias and favouritism towards the son of a member of the Planning Committee. The appearance given to complainants was that, had the applicant not been the son of a councillor, the application would have been refused under delegated powers.”

The applicant’s father did not participate in the decision, but the Ombudsman criticised the actions of a second councillor on several points. In particular he asked for the application to be considered by the Planning Committee, rather than be decided by officers, when he was neither a member of the Committee nor the representative for the ward.

The Ombudsman says: “The cumulative effect of [the second councillor’s] conduct created the impression that he was at the Planning Committee to represent the views of [the applicant’s father] who was according to his own declaration and the rules, unable to participate.”

Two village residents complained about the Council’s grant of planning permission for a housing development within the village boundary. The applicant was the son of a ward councillor. For legal reasons, the names used in the report are not the real ones.

The Council was recommended to refuse planning permission because of the impact of development on the site’s function as a County Wildlife Site, because of the impact on an old oak tree, because of highways problems, and because the design and layout of the development were unacceptable. In nevertheless granting permission, the Committee failed in its duty to have proper regard to material planning considerations. Development has since commenced.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council:

  • apologises to the complainants and pays them £1,000 each; and
  • puts in place training for Planning Committee members to ensure they are fully aware of their duty to determine planning applications in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and their duty to avoid any appearance of bias in decision making.

The Ombudsman understands that the Standards Board for England is conducting an investigation into alleged breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct for members, associated with the events described in the report.

Date Published: 28/10/08