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 : : Herefordshire Council (06B14891)

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

Herefordshire Council (06B14891)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

10 October 2007

‘Mr Martin’ (not his real name) lived in a cottage in a rural part of Herefordshire, surrounded by fields. The son of a nearby farmer applied for planning permission for a smithy and stables with a farrier’s cottage and apprentice flat on land adjacent to Mr Martin’s property. Mr Martin complained that the Council’s planning committee, in approving the application against the officer’s recommendation:

  • was misled by the presentation of inaccurate information relating to a nearby site and by the omission of extensive photographs supplied by Mr Martin regarding the effect of the proposals on his amenity; and
  • did so without providing sufficient reasons for rejecting the officer’s recommendation for refusal. In particular the committee failed to explain why this application accorded with the Council’s planning policies or why it should be treated as an exception to those policies.

Mr Martin said that the development would affect his amenity with an increase in noise and traffic. Furthermore he would lose the privacy and peace he enjoyed from living in an isolated rural spot in open countryside. He also complained that the development, and the potential for further development, was having a detrimental effect on his attempts to sell the property.

The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in failing to give adequate reasons for granting the application against officer advice and against significant local and national planning policies. He accepted that members of the planning committee were entitled to depart from the officer’s advice but only where they have good reason to do so, based on clear and legitimate planning grounds. In this case he found that the members had failed to provide such justification for the decision.

This failure caused Mr Martin significant injustice as the amenity he derived from living in open countryside would be permanently lost and could worsen if more development was permitted in the future. He has also experienced difficulties in selling his property which appeared to be directly related to the approved development.

Remedy

In accordance with the Ombudsman's recommendations, the Council:

  • commissioned independent valuations of Mr Martin’s property both before and after the development was approved;
  • paid Mr Martin the difference between the valuations, if any (there was none, in the event);
  • paid Mr Martin £250 in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the Council and with the Ombudsman; and
  • produced a good practice guide for members of the planning committee on dealing with all aspects of the decision-making process, and arranged appropriate training for all members once it was introduced.

LGO satisfied with Council's response: 24 September 2009

Date Updated: 11/12/09