Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Planning : : Planning archive 2011-12 : : South Holland DC (08 010 396)

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 Holland DC (08 010 396)

Planning enforcement                Maladministration causing injustice

31 October 2011

South Holland District Council took enforcement action against a housing developer contrary to legal advice and national planning policy guidance. The Ombudsman said the Council should acknowledge its faults in this case and make a full and unreserved apology to the developer, Nestwood Homes Ltd. They were caused considerable injustice in terms of stress, damage to reputation, financial difficulties and losses and consequent strain on family and business relationships.

It is rare for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints by developers about the planning process. In the particular circumstances of this case the Ombudsman was satisfied that she had – and should exercise – discretion to investigate.

A council officer approved plans submitted by Nestwood Homes Ltd to meet a planning condition. In approving the plans the officer inadvertently gave permission for raising the land levels on the site, so the new houses were built higher.

When work started on site, neighbouring residents began to object. The Council sought Counsel’s opinion, which was clear and unambiguous – the Council had granted planning permission for the raised levels and that permission would remain valid unless quashed by a judicial review in the High Court.

Counsel drafted a letter to be sent to Nestwood. It differed from Counsel’s opinion in a very significant way. Whereas Counsel had advised that the planning permission was “not void but voidable”, the letter said that the permission was “void and voidable”.

Nestwood continued with the development. Reports were submitted to the Planning Control Committee who visited the site. It decided to take enforcement action requiring four properties, three garages and much of the boundary walls and fencing to be demolished.

Meanwhile, prospective purchasers of the houses were deterred by local publicity and information provided by the Council in response to local searches after enforcement action was agreed.

Nestwood appealed against the enforcement notices to the Secretary of State. A Planning Inspector ruled that the Council had granted permission for the raised levels. He ordered that the Council should pay all the costs of the appeal, saying “in light of their own Counsel's advice that enforcement action in relation to the raising of levels ... would be unlikely to succeed, and the relatively weak case put forward... I consider that the Council behaved unreasonably in defending the appeals”.

Nestwood complain that the Council acted unreasonably and unfairly, delayed making decisions, and unreasonably informed prospective purchasers that the development was unlawful. The Company Director responsible for the development says he suffered a great deal of stress, family relationships were nearly destroyed, employees were at risk of redundancy, the Company was vilified in the media, its reputation was severely damaged, it suffered additional costs and commercial losses amounting to £1.2 million.

The Ombudsman found maladministration on a number of points, including:

  • the officers’ reports to the Planning Control Committee were poorly structured, not clear and comprehensible and materially misrepresented Counsel’s opinion, and as a result a significant proportion of the Committee members did not have an adequate understanding of Counsel’s advice or of the relevant issues
  • the officer’s report recommended action that did not reflect the officer’s professional views and did not comply with national guidance that enforcement “... should always be commensurate with the breach of planning control...”, and
  • a number of the Committee members had predetermined their view about enforcement action before considering the issue at the March meeting and were influenced by irrelevant negative interpretations of Nestwood’s actions that were not supported by any evidence.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should:

  • pay Nestwood £214,053 plus interest for its costs and charges arising as a result of the Council’s maladministration
  • pay Nestwood £25,000 in respect of loss of opportunity to achieve higher sales proceeds than those eventually obtained which can be attributed in part to the Council’s maladministration, and
  • pay the Director of Nestwood who made the complaint to the Ombudsman £25,000 in respect of the stress, strain and damage to reputation caused by the Council's maladministration.

Date Updated: 03/11/11