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 : : South Somerset District Council (05B15862)

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

South Somerset District Council (05B15862)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

22 May 2007

The Ombudsman criticised South Somerset Council over its handling of a planning application for a manufacturing business and, later, delaying eight months in commencing enforcement action against unauthorised activity. The Ombudsman recommends the Council to pay £5,000 to a business rival for justifiable outrage and for having to take professional advice for longer than necessary. However, the Ombudsman did not agree that the complainant’s commercial losses were the Council’s fault: these were caused by the rival business, not the Council.

‘Mr Nelson’ (not his real name for legal reasons) complained that the Council had incorrectly sought to grant planning approval for the manufacturing operations of a business rival and that, when planning permission was later refused, it delayed in taking enforcement action against the unauthorised operations.

The Ombudsman found that the Council’s initial decision to grant planning approval subject to a legal agreement was flawed because:

  • it did not have reliable information upon which to base its view that the development was justified on economic grounds; and
  • making the approval subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement was irrelevant to the planning issues.

Later, when planning permission was refused, the Council took eight months too long to commence enforcement action. Mr Nelson was caused outrage by the Council’s error, in that he had to operate in an adverse business environment and paid for professional advice for longer than he should have done.

One councillor (not named in the report) was a customer of the business rival, and had submitted a letter supporting the planning application although she did not attend the meeting where it was decided. The Ombudsman found this was a breach of the Code of Conduct and was therefore maladministration. However, this made no difference to the outcome of the application because similar views were expressed by another councillor.

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

  • pay Mr Nelson compensation of £5,000 and
  • review its planning procedures to ensure, as far as possible, that the maladministration identified does not recur.

Date Published: 28/10/08