Melton Borough Council’s decision to grant permission for a village bungalow due to the personal circumstances of the applicant was “flawed”,

Melton Borough Council’s decision to grant permission for a bungalow due to the personal circumstances of the applicant was “flawed”, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin. In her report, issued today (12 May 2011) she recognises that a planning committee is within its rights, exceptionally, to grant a personal permission but says that in this case, there was no objective evaluation from officers on which to base its decision.

The complainants live in a village, part of which is a designated conservation area. The Council granted planning permission for a bungalow to be built on farm land next to their home, outside the village envelope for development and outside of the conservation area. The decision was contrary to officer recommendation and Council policy. ‘Mr and Mrs R’ complained to the Council and a revocation meeting was held to consider the application and decision. The decision to approve the application remained the same. Mr and Mrs R said the development affected their enjoyment of their home and garden and they were misled over the revocation meeting which raised their expectations that the decision could be altered.

The applicant’s reasons for wishing to build a new bungalow included that he was elderly, had disabled status, and that his existing home was subject to multiple flooding. Government advice is that permissions granted just because of the circumstances of the applicant should only be granted “exceptionally”. The Ombudsman considered why the committee approved the application, contrary to the substantial planning history, to the Council’s own policies and to the officers’ recommendation. The recorded reason for the permission says “the development having been permitted due to the personal circumstances of the applicant”.

In deciding that permission would not have been granted if proper process had been followed, the Ombudsman took into account the fact that the applicant’s then home remains occupied. This suggests that, had members been fully informed of the situation in respect of flooding, they may well have concluded that the case was not made.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that a ‘before and after’ valuation be carried out on the complainants’ property. This should ascertain the impact of the new dwelling on the complainants’ property and the Council should then pay Mr and Mrs R any difference in value, plus £500 for their time and trouble in pursing their complaint.

Report ref no 09 002 577

Article date: 12 May 2011