Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council granted planning permission for extensions to two terraced houses without applying its own planning policies, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex.

In her report, issued today (25 April 2012) she concludes that the faults arose because of an instruction given to planning officers by their manager that previous decisions by councillors to allow large extensions in terraced properties should override the policies.

The Ombudsman says this was: “systemic maladministration that debases the planning system, corrupts the proper roles of elected councillors and officials, and represents a significant failing of corporate governance”.

She concludes: “The Council should acknowledge the serious and corrosive nature of the systemic maladministration identified by this investigation. It should ensure that all officers and councillors are aware of the public law principles that apply to decisions by public authorities and that its officers, in particular its planning officers, are able to give advice in accordance with their professional opinions and judgements.”

Two householders in different parts of the town complained about the Council giving planning permission for large extensions to houses next to them in their terraces.

A director granted the planning permissions based on reports by planning officers. In both cases, officers did not apply the Council’s published planning policies. The planning officers’ manager had told them that previous decisions by some councillors to allow large extensions in terraced properties should override the policies. He told officers they should recommend planning permission for large extensions as that was what some councillors wanted. Planning officers were following this instruction and not using their own professional judgement.

The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council in granting the permissions. This was because, in both cases, the officers’ reports did not deal with relevant, site-specific planning issues and did not apply the Council’s policies or give reasons why they should not apply. Under the Council’s Constitution, the director did not have the power to grant planning permission in breach of policy.

It was not errors, neglect or incompetence by the relatively junior planning officers who assessed the planning applications that caused this maladministration. The cause was the instruction given by senior officers.

One of the householders who complained now lives next to an extension two storeys high and four metres long (with a further 1.75 metres of single-storey beyond). The extension almost fills the next door back yard and its height and size blocks all the sunlight from the householder’s own, very small back yard. It also greatly reduces the light to the back of their home.

To remedy this injustice the Ombudsman recommends the Council should pay the householder £31,500.

The extension allowed by the other planning permission has not been built. If it is built the householder who complained will have a single-storey brick wall cutting across the view from her kitchen window at an angle of 20 degrees.

To remedy this injustice the Ombudsman recommends the Council considers revoking the planning permission. If the Council decides to leave the planning permission in place, it should pay to move the householder’s kitchen window and all associated costs.

Report ref nos 10 022 952 & 11 000 695

Article date: 25 April 2012