Faults in the way planning permission was granted for psychiatric facility

Archived press release

Date Published: 24/03/09

Bradford City Council did not properly address residents' concerns about safety and security when granting permission for a psychiatric facility.

There were faults in the way Bradford City Council granted permission for a low security psychiatric facility, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report, issued today (24 March 2009) she says “…residents' concerns about safety and security were not properly addressed by the planning authority…” but finds that the Council’s failures did not lead it to approve an application that would otherwise have been refused. She is pleased that the Council has agreed to implement her recommendations for a remedy.

‘Mr L’ (real names of people and places are not used for legal reasons) complains about the way that the Council allowed a low security psychiatric facility to be developed in his neighbourhood, that it has lost an important planning file, and that it did not deal with his complaints properly. He says that he and his neighbours are concerned for their children’s safety and have been distressed by witnessing residents of the facility being forcibly returned after absconding.

Residential accommodation and care; hospitals and nursing homes; and residential schools, colleges or training centres are all in the same use class for town and country planning purposes. This means that if planning permission has been given for one of the uses, a site or building can be used for any of the others.

At the time of the events in this complaint, the Council’s own planning guidance on Homes for the Elderly said that it might be appropriate to limit a planning permission to a specific use ‘…because the impact of other uses even within the same class may be significantly different and [the Council] would wish to reserve its right to decide each application on its individual merit.

In 1999 the Council gave planning permission for a residential home and a home for the elderly mentally infirm, with a condition restricting the home to use for people over 60. Subsequently, two further planning applications, described as a ‘close care unit’ and ‘residential/ nursing home/independent hospital’, were approved by officers, and these altered the size and design of the buildings. Permissions did not include restrictions on age.

In 2003 another planning application was made, described and advertised as a remodelled scheme for a 70 bed nursing home/independent hospital. There were no objections from residents, and officers gave planning permission without any restrictions about age or type of user.

The applicant intended the building to be (and now operates it as) a low security psychiatric facility. When residents found out they complained to the Council and formed an Action Group. The file on the 2003 planning application has been lost. Mr L is concerned at the loss of evidence about how the Council dealt with the planning application and that it responded to his complaint without that evidence.

The Ombudsman found that the Council did not address the issues of safety and security that concern Mr L and his neighbours, and acted with maladministration because:

• it took account of its planning guidance on ‘Homes for the Elderly’ in 1999 but not for the later planning applications and there is no record of why officers no longer thought the use should be restricted to a specific one within the Use Class;
• the only copies of important information about the 2003 planning application are missing because the file has been lost – the Council does not know how or when this happened;
• the Planning Officers did not realise that the 2003 application was a psychiatric hospital with some degree of security and used delegated powers when it should have been referred to the Area Planning Panel;
• the Council had no documentary evidence for the assurances it gave to Mr L about how it had dealt with the 2003 application.

She concludes that the maladministration did not lead the Council to approve a planning application that would otherwise have been refused, because officers would have recommended that it was acceptable in planning terms; national planning guidance says that conditions to restrict development to a specific use within a use class should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances and to achieve a clear planning purpose.

The Council has introduced new procedures designed to avoid planning files being lost, and has agreed to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations that it should:

• pay Mr L £500 in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing his concerns; and
• meet with senior management to explore whether it can provide any appropriate assistance to the hospital in relation to planning matters, in addressing the issue of absconding.

A senior member of staff at the hospital says she and her colleagues are eager to collaborate with the Council in addressing any concerns local residents have.

report ref 06C01820