District council hits out at Ombudsman over planning complaint report

A district council has hit out at the Local Government Ombudsman over a report on a complaint about the alleged failure to take into consideration an objection to a planning application.

Earlier this month the LGO recommended to Selby District Council that it apologise to the couple over the issue and pay them £1,896 for the cost of their planning consultant’s fees.

They had argued that Selby did not take into consideration their objections when a neighbour applied to add a single story to his cottage 3.5 metres from their home.

Planners at the council approved the application using delegated powers. The couple employed the consultant after permission had been granted.

The Ombudsman claimed that Selby “could offer no evidence that it had considered the effect the extension would have on the couple’s kitchen diner, or that officers had considered their objection letter”.



The LGO added that, at a late stage of its investigation, officers said the extension could have been built using permitted development rights.

“Had the permitted development issue been addressed much sooner, the couple would have avoided the time, trouble and expense of pursuing their complaint and the expense of a planning consultant,” it argued.

The LGO report will be considered by Selby at a meeting on 10 December 2013.

However, the council said it had a number of concerns about its contents. It claimed that it had asked for “five key facts” to be included:

1. The decision taken by the council’s planning officer to grant planning permission was the correct planning decision. “As the development could have taken place using permitted development rights it would have been entirely unjustifiable for the council to have refused to grant planning permission.”
2. The professional planning consultant employed by the complainants failed to advise their client that the council’s decision was the correct decision. “The council cannot understand why the Local Government Ombudsman is asking the council to refund the complainants costs in obtaining this flawed advice.”
3. Two independent planning advisors consulted by the LGO “wrongly advised the investigator that the council’s decision to grant planning permission was unreasonable”. The investigator had to eventually accept that this advice was wrong, Selby said.
4. The report criticised the council for raising the issue of permitted development rights at a late stage in the investigation. “This was because the investigator had refused to meet with planning officers before drafting his first report, to enable them to explain the situation.”
5. The length of time taken to reach a conclusion on the complaint had been caused by “considerable delays” in the LGO’s investigation. “The council has always responded promptly to requests for information and met the deadlines set by the LGO."

Selby claimed that the Ombudsman had refused to include any of these facts in the draft report. “Had they done so it might have raised doubts about the reasonableness of the Ombudsman’s conclusions and the remedy she has recommended.”

Cllr Mark Crane, Leader of Selby District Council, said: “We take all of the Ombudsman’s reports seriously. However this report overlooks a number of key facts which the council asked to be included in the report and which would have provided a much more balanced account.

“The planning officer considered the objections raised by the complainant and didn’t find their case to be strong enough to refuse planning permission. The Ombudsman has criticised the report for referring to these matters in general, rather than specific terms, and we can learn from that. But the decision to grant planning permission was correct. The complainants’ professional planning advisors and the Ombudsman’s own planning advisors were plainly wrong.”

Cllr Crane added: “In those circumstances it is hard to see the justification for the Ombudsman’s conclusions.”

He said he would be seeking a meeting with the Ombudsman to discuss this further.

A spokeswoman for the Local Government Ombudsman said: “The report we’ve already published sets out our findings from the investigation, and we accept that councils will not always agree with our decisions.

“We give the public a means to redress when public services go wrong, through independent and objective investigations, which helps to ensure that local authorities are accountable to those who access those services."

The council is not bound to comply with the LGO’s recommendations.