Darlington Borough Council (06C05668)
Planning applications Maladministration causing injustice
11 December 2008
“Multiple and various failings” by Darlington Borough Council officers almost led to the partial demolition of a village barn that was a listed building. The Ombudsman says the Council’s Planning Committee was not properly advised and therefore not able to take all relevant matters into account when reaching its decisions. The complainants were very upset about the potential loss of the long barn that formed an important part of the character of their village, and “That loss has now been avoided but only because of their indefatigable efforts.”
‘Mr and Mrs B’ (not their real names for legal reasons) live in a conservation area on the main street near the centre of a village. They complain that the Council failed to deal properly with applications for a development next door to them that involved converting some listed agricultural buildings into homes, demolishing others and building new houses.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that Council officers did not seem to understand the description of the buildings in the listing; did not apply the legal definition of a listed building and so did not require an application for listed building consent; did not address themselves to the appropriate national planning policies and guidance; and did not notify English Heritage and the National Amenity Societies.
The reports on which the Planning Area Committee made its decisions were deficient. In particular, the report on which it decided to approve demolitions and conversions of the listed buildings failed:
- to correctly identify the buildings that were listed;
- to explain the general presumption in favour of preserving listed buildings;
- to clearly explain the proper tests for the committee to apply as set out in national Planning Policy Guidance 15 and confirmed by case law, ie first: will the proposed works significantly harm the listed building or its setting; second: if so, are the works desirable or necessary?;
- to provide the information necessary to apply the second test; and
- to include a highly relevant point from an earlier decision by a Planning Inspector.
The justification for the partial demolition was to comply with the Council’s requirements as highway authority about the width of the access road. This was based on an, unchallenged, ‘requirement’, originally specified by a Council highways officer, that had not been required in other cases.
The Council has subsequently agreed an alternative access and approved an alternative development without the partial demolition of the long barn.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Council would not have approved the partial demolition of the long barn if the Committee had been properly advised. However, she did not believe that the Council would have refused permission for other aspects of the development.
Mr and Mrs B took a great deal of time and trouble in pursuing their complaint with the Council and this is the injustice caused to them by the Council’s maladministration. The Council had already offered £500 to Mr and Mrs B in recognition of their time and trouble and the Ombudsman confirms that is an appropriate remedy.
The Council says it has restructured and strengthened its planning function and reviewed its practices. The Ombudsman urges it to also ensure that all staff involved in dealing with development control decisions are properly trained in the law and its own policies and procedures relating to listed buildings.
Date Published: 15/12/08