East Staffordshire BC (09 000 881 & 3 others)
Planning applications Maladministration causing injustice
23 May 2011
East Staffordshire Borough Council failed to robustly defend an appeal against its refusal of a planning application. The Council had refused the application for a new building on the grounds that it would be visually prominent and have an imposing impact on the surrounding area. The Ombudsman said that the complainants had a reasonable expectation that the Council would do more to protect their position and defend the appeal, but the Council had done “the minimum required”.
She said: “In my view, the Council then had a duty to defend its decision and respond to the Planning Inspectorate. The Council did not robustly defend the appeal. … It had the opportunity to suggest conditions but did not do so.”
As a result, the complainants were left with the uncertainty of not knowing whether the completed building might have been built at a different level, and so less visually prominent.
A local farmer submitted a planning application for the erection of a building to be used as a free-range egg-laying unit. The application was considered under delegated powers and was refused on the grounds that the mass and siting of the building would have an imposing impact on the surrounding area and would be visually prominent.
The applicant appealed the refusal and permission was granted by the Planning Inspectorate. As part of the appeal process the Council submitted a response but did not include any conditions it considered should be added if the Inspector was minded to grant permission. The complainants considered that a condition should have been added about ground levels as the application site was sloping. The applicant then imported over 100,000 tonnes of material to the site to build up the land and produce a level area on which to build. The complainants soid that, as a result of the Council’s failure to suggest a condition about ground levels, the building was even more visually prominent.
Remedy
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice, and the Council agreed to comply with her recommendations to pay the three nearest complainants £500 each to recognise their uncertainty as they would never know what the final outcome would have been if a levels condition had been suggested by the Council. This amount also reflected their time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Another couple also complained but lived about 1km away and could not see the development from their property. A payment of £150 was agreed to recognise their time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
Remedy agreed prior to publication: 23 May 2011
Date Updated: 10/08/11