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 : : London Borough of Hounslow (05A14008)

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

London Borough of Hounslow (05A14008)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

16 May 2008

The complaint

Mr V and Mr W lived in a conservation area. They complained about the way that the Council decided not to take enforcement action against a neighbour who had built a rear garage and added features to his house without planning permission. The development had a detrimental effect on Mr V’s and Mr W’s enjoyment of their own homes, and they consider that it reduced the value of their properties.

What happened

The Council investigated Mr V’s complaint and agreed that the development breached the Council’s policies and guidance for building in conservation areas and was detrimental to the local street scene. They made a recommendation to an area planning committee that enforcement action should be taken to make the neighbour remove the garage and other unauthorised features. However the area committee decided not to take action.

Mr V and Mr W were disappointed with the Council’s failure to consider the matter properly, and had to make great and prolonged efforts to have the decision reconsidered.

The Ombudsman’s view

The Ombudsman found that, in taking its decision not to take enforcement action, the area committee took into account irrelevant matters and factually inaccurate information. The committee gave little weight to the Council’s policies and planning guidance. Some members of the committee had received no training in planning issues. One of the reasons given for their decision was factually inaccurate.

A review of the Council’s records revealed that in recent years this area committee had refused a higher proportion of officers’ recommendations to take planning enforcement action than the Council’s other area planning committees, and that concerns about this committee’s planning decision making had been raised in a report to the Council’s executive committee by its scrutiny Committee in 2003. The Ombudsman said:

“It appears that there is still a need for training about planning matters for the members of this committee.”

The outcome

The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:

  • put this case to the Council’s sustainable development committee for it to consider afresh whether it would be expedient to take enforcement action;
  • pay Mr V and Mr W £500 each; and
  • review the report and recommendations adopted by its executive in 2003, to see what could be done to build on this report and ensure the implementation of its decisions.

Date Updated: 13/01/09