LGO attacks council for "serious flaws" in approval of planning application

The Local Government Ombudsman has sharply criticised a council for “serious flaws" in the way it approved a planning application for a large residential development next to a man’s home.

An investigation by the LGO, Dr Jane Martin, found deficiencies both in the report prepared by the case officer at Bolton Council and the planning process.

The man complained to the Ombudsman after Bolton approved the planning application. He argued that the local authority failed properly to consider the impact of the development, including that the new house next to his property was raised up by as much as two metres.

Trees on the boundary had previously protected him and were subject to tree preservation orders. However, the TPOs were removed during the planning process without the complainant’s knowledge.

The man said the loss of those trees and the raising of the land levels had affected his privacy and caused an overbearing impact.

The LGO described the case officer’s report as “deficient” because it did not:

  • deal with how the development would impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties;
  • say (and the plans did not show) the ground floor of the property next to the complainant's home would be some two meters higher than the land on his side of the boundary;
  • comment on how the raised land levels would affect the complainant;
  • provide any information about what trees would be removed or what the impact might be; and
  • tell the committee the developer's flood risk assessment had not used the 1 in 100 year + 30% standard required by government guidance.

The planning process was also deemed to be flawed because the Environment Agency was not consulted on flood risk issues, and no account had been taken of Government guidance on flood protection.

Acccording to the Ombudsman, these failures meant the planning committee did not have the information it needed to make a fully-informed decision. Nor could the complainant and other residents know exactly how they might be affected.

The failure to consult the Environment Agency meant the wrong flood risk standards were applied to the drainage.

The Ombudsman expressed concern that the Head of Planning at Bolton had tried to argue that the committee report did not need to address how the development impacted on the residential amenity of existing properties. "This was clearly a material planning consideration on which the officers should have advised the committee," her report said.

The LGO concluded that had the issues over the trees and land levels been raised, Bolton would have required the developer to take some action to protect the man’s privacy. "The lack of such protection is an injustice to him," she said.

Finding maladministration, Dr Martin recommended that Bolton review its policies and procedures to ensure it takes account of material planning considerations in future, and update its internal guidance on consultations to include all statutory consultees.

She also said Bolton should:

  • apologise to the complainant;
  • meet with the complainant to discuss how the council might now help restore his privacy and fund agreed work up to a cost of £1,000;
  • pay him £500 for his time and trouble in bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman’s attention;
  • ensure that its case officers know that reports should both identify and address material planning considerations; and
  • meet the Environment Agency to correctly assess the adequacy of drainage on the site. "If any work is deemed necessary, the details should be put to the council to consider whether it will be funded."

The council has agreed to implement the Ombudsman's recommendations.