Grave concern over Castle Morpeth Council’s response to critical report

Archived press release

Date Published: 10/12/08

Castle Morpeth Borough Council did not comply with the law in failing to consider the Ombudsman's finding that the Council had unreasonably sought to enforce conditions for the construction of a self-built ‘timber/log kit’ home.

The Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex, is “gravely concerned” that Castle Morpeth Borough Council did not comply with the law* in failing to consider her report. In her report, she had found it unreasonably sought to enforce conditions for the construction of a self-built ‘timber/log kit’ home. She has therefore issued a further report today (10 December 2008) in which she says “The way that the Council has responded to my report only adds to the discredit it has brought on itself by the wholly unjustified and unreasonable way that it dealt with [the complainants]”.

The Ombudsman issued her original report on 14 April 2008. Some eight months before she issued the report, the Council’s Executive Board, meeting in private, considered a report of the Legal & Democratic Services Manager. The confidential minute of that meeting says this “…gave details of a Local Government Ombudsman complaint and sought authority as to the way forward.” The Councillors who participated in the Executive Board meeting on 6 September 2007 reached a decision to reject a finding of maladministration by the Ombudsman, should there be one.

After the Ombudsman’s report was issued, it was made available “for information”. She says “In my view they [the Executive Board] could be regarded as having pre-determined the matter thereby casting serious doubt on whether they can now approach consideration of this further report, as they need to, with the required open mind, have regard to all material considerations and be prepared to change their minds if persuaded that they should.”

In the original report, the Ombudsman found no evidence that the Council ever made a properly-considered decision that the conditions that it was seeking to enforce were actually required. It also failed to monitor what was being constructed on the site, and was therefore unable to show that it had treated each purchaser equitably.

A couple (called ‘Mr and Mrs C’ in the report) bought a building plot as part of a project sponsored by the Council to promote timber/log self-build homes with high standards of environmental sustainability. The Council unreasonably refused to allow them to use materials and methods that would have achieved all the required sustainability standards.

The Council said that it refused because what the Cs wanted to build did not meet its specification of a timber/log house. There is no evidence that the Council ever considered or approved a definition or specification for what it meant by a timber/log home. It took no steps to ensure that all the properties were built to the sustainability standards that it had set.

The Ombudsman repeats her recommendations that the Council should:

• pay Mr and Mrs C £5,440 for the additional costs their incurred as a result of the requirements that the Council unreasonably imposed; and
• pay Mr and Mrs C £500 in recognition of their distress, time and trouble.
   

* Section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 as amended by the Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Act 2007

Further report ref 05C17283