Borough of Poole Council (07B07080)

Planning applications                 Maladministration causing injustice

12 May 2008

Planning permission for a pair of semidetached houses was granted because of a misunderstanding. The Ombudsman says that the application was approved by a single vote majority, and that one councillor says she was misled at the meeting.

The Ombudsman was not able to establish exactly what was said at the meeting. He concluded that, for whatever reason, a misapprehension arose that influenced this councillor’s decision. As the application was only approved by one vote, the Ombudsman considers that, but for the misapprehension, the Council would probably have refused the application. It is possible that the applicant could have appealed successfully against such a refusal. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant is left with some uncertainty about the outcome and a justified sense of outrage.

‘Mr Smith’ (not his real name for legal reasons) lives next to the site. He fears that the development will be overbearing, causing loss of amenity and parking problems.

The application site is on a steep slope. This means that the proposed houses would appear to have two storeys when viewed from the street but, when seen from the rear it is clear that they have three storeys. The Council’s Planning Committee approved the planning application by a majority of one vote. The Committee’s Vice-Chairman, Councillor C, says that she only voted to grant planning permission because, during the debate, the Chairman, Councillor B, said that the house neighbouring the application site also had three storeys of living accommodation when seen from the rear. Councillor C therefore thought the proposed new houses would be in keeping with neighbouring properties. In fact, the adjoining properties do not have three storeys. Councillor C says that, had she known this, she would have voted to refuse planning permission. Councillor B denies saying the houses had three storeys and maintains she said that, because of the slope, houses could have an additional storey compared with what was visible from the street.

The Ombudsman did not criticise the actions of any individual councillors. His finding is against the Council as a whole. He finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council should pay Mr Smith £750.

He found no evidence to support an allegation that there was voting on party lines.

Date Updated: 14/10/08