Local authority agrees to pay businessman £20k+ over planning failures

Cornwall Council has agreed to a Local Government Ombudsman recommendation that it should pay a businessman more than £20,000 in costs over planning errors.

The businessman, Mr B, owned a site from which he operates a business.

Cornwall granted planning permission for the building of a new office block. However, officers failed to consult the Ramblers Association or consider a public footpath that ran across the site.

The local authority also failed to inform Mr B of the need to consider the footpath.

The presence of the footpath was identified shortly after planning permission was granted and Mr B was informed of the need to seek a footpath diversion order.

However, Cornwall did not advise Mr of the length of time that it would take to obtain such an order.

The council also:

• Failed to advertise properly the first footpath diversion order. This meant a delay until the correct process was followed.
• Delayed in recognising and advising Mr B of the correct line of the footpath, and that it was obstructed by the building rather than the parking area.

Cornwall meanwhile advised the complainant that he could start work on the development while the diversion order application was under consideration.

With the diversion order process taking almost two years to conclude, Mr B had to put building works on hold. He therefore incurred additional building costs and fees for advice.

Cornwall has accepted an LGO recommendation that it pay 50% of the additional costs incurred by the businessman as a result of the failures.

Dr Jane Martin, the Ombudsman said: “The complainant was not told how long it might take for those permissions to be granted, and so he felt rightfully aggrieved when this process took longer than anticipated. This was compounded all the more by the confusion surrounding the actual location of the footpath which took many months for the council to determine.

“I am pleased that Cornwall Council have agreed to pay the complainant 50% of the additional costs he has incurred as I believe there have been failures on the part of the council. However, the complainant did have his own professional advisers representing him, and those advisers should have also identified and discussed with him the possibility of redrawing and resubmitting his plans to avoid the footpath and a delay.”