Ombudsman issues second report against council that rejected recommendations

The Local Government Ombudsman has issued a second report into a district council after the authority refused to accept the recommendations of an earlier report.

In October 2013 the LGO called on Selby District Council to apologise to a couple who complained about an alleged failure to take into consideration to a planning application.

The first report also recommended that the council pay the complainants £1,896 for the cost of their planning consultant’s fees as well as make a £250 ‘time and trouble’ payment.

The row emerged after planners at Selby approved the planning application for ane extension using delegated powers. The complainants employed the consultant after permission had been granted.

In the original report the LGO 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.

But Selby said it had a number of concerns about the first report’s contents, adding that it had asked for “five key facts” to be included but the LGO had not done so.

These included that the decision taken by the council’s planning officer to grant planning permission was the correct planning decision.

The professional planning consultant employed by the complainants failed to advise their client that the council’s decision was the correct decision, the authority added.

The LGO’s second report calls on Selby to agree the remedy recommended.

Dr Jane Martin, the Ombudsman, said: “I have considered the council’s objections in detail and uphold my original decision. While our decision is final, it is now up to the council to decide how they implement the recommendations – the vast majority of authorities agree to them.

“I hope the council will reconsider its position so that the situation can be resolved and a satisfactory outcome can be achieved for the couple involved.”

A spokesman for Selby said: “We disagreed with the original Ombudsman’s recommendation and the council resolved that the remedy was unreasonable and declined to implement it. We’ve received the updated report and will consider carefully what the Ombudsman has said before responding formally.

“We strive to deliver a first class planning service: it’s a complex area of legislation with many different considerations when determining applications. We are confident that we made the right decision in this case and the Ombudsman has accepted that to be the case.”

He added: “We will ensure that the Ombudsman’s report is made available for public inspection and the council will issue its response once we have considered the report in detail.”