Ombudsman criticises Council over refusal to remedy injustice

Archived press release

Date Published: 24/10/08

Oswestry Borough Council has declined to fulfil a recommendation to remedy injustice caused by its fault over the grant of planning permission for a bungalow in the countryside.

Oswestry Borough Council has declined to fulfil a recommendation to remedy injustice caused by its fault over the grant of planning permission for a bungalow in the countryside, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Jerry White. In his report, issued today (24 October 2008) he says “My previous report on these complaints identified clear and significant maladministration. The Council’s continuing intransigence in the face of the evidence is disappointing. I remain unconvinced by its reasons for not implementing my recommendations in full”, and comments “the Council appears to have an inadequate understanding of its responsibilities as a local planning authority.”

In his first report (January 2008), the Ombudsman found that the Council was at fault in failing to give adequate reasons for granting planning permission for a new bungalow, on the edge of a village and surrounded by fields, to the parents of a disabled child, against officers’ advice and against the Local Plan policies. He accepted that councillors were entitled to depart from the officers’ advice, but only where they have good reason to do so, based on clear and legitimate planning grounds. In this case councillors failed to provide such justification for the decision and that was maladministration. The Ombudsman emphasised how important it was to give full explanations of reasons “if the public is to have confidence in the planning system.”

The Ombudsman also found that, had there been no maladministration, on balance, this development would not have been permitted. This caused injustice to the complainants as the amenity they derived from living in open countryside would be permanently lost and there would be a fundamental change to the character of the area in which they live.

The Ombudsman recommended the Council to:

• commission independent valuations of the complainants’ properties both before and after the development was approved;
• pay each complainant the difference between the valuations, if any; and
• pay the complainants £250 each in recognition of their time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

The Council has commissioned the valuations of the properties, but does not accept the finding of maladministration or the Ombudsman’s recommended remedy. It has responded that it believes the needs of the applicant outweighed those of the complainants.

The Ombudsman says “This response seems to me to miss the point. It is not a question of whether the needs of the applicant outweighed those of the complainants, but whether the requirements of the Council’s policies were met. The Council’s comments support my view that Members appear to have been influenced by the medical needs of the child rather than restricting themselves to the planning merits of the case as they should have done.”

The Ombudsman calls upon the Council to live up to its responsibilities and remedy the injustice to the complainants. 

Further report ref 06B09241