Council rapped in planning row
Changes 'should not have been treated as minor issue'
Bradford Council has been given a rap on the knuckles by a watchdog in a planning row – the second time this year.
The Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex, issued a report today, saying the council was at fault for dealing with and approving amended plans for a house in a conservation area as minor amendments.
The Ombudsman found there was maladministration by the council in that changes to the plans which increased the height of the building by over four metres were treated as "minor amendments".
However, no injustice resulted from the council's maladministration because there was no specific adverse impact on the complainants.
The council gives its senior planners and senior planning officers the power to accept or reject amendments to approve planning permissions as long as they would not "…entail a material change in the overall impact of the development in planning terms".
In October 2001 an area planning manager agreed to amendments to plans for a house in a conservation area. The amendments increased the height of the building by over four metres, added an extra storey and changed the roof style.
Dealing with the amendments in this way meant that the public was neither informed nor consulted and lost any opportunity to influence the decision. Members of the local Residents' Association say that as a consequence they are "…saddled with a monstrosity on their doorsteps not in scale with the local environment".
The Ombudsman said the planning manager, "may have acted with good intentions. However, he exceeded his authority and, once issued, it is exceedingly rare for planning permission to be revoked".
The planning manager was influenced in his decision to deal with the changes as minor amendments by the fact there was a valid planning permission for the site to be used as a youth club.
Although that planning permission had been granted by a planning committee he was aware that it was unpopular and influential people in the community had asked him to try to avoid it being implemented.
Whatever the motives, it was maladministration by the council to deal with and approve the changes as minor amendments.
The Ombudsman's investigation produced evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, the amendments would not have been approved if there had been consultation and a report to a planning committee.
In a further twist, a planning committee has subsequently approved a retrospective planning application that increased the height of the house by a further metre.
A council spokeswoman said the authority had not contested the Ombudsman's decision and would not, therefore, make any comment. She added that a copy of the report would be available in Keighley Town Hall and Jacob's Well and City Hall, Bradford this month.
Earlier this year the council was criticised by the Ombudsman for failing to enforce conditions attached to planning permission for a development next to the complainant's home undermining his privacy.
Source: Yorkshire Post Today (03/10/2006)
Other articles
Council spends £10,000 to discover who 'baaed' at meeting (13/10/2006)
council complaints
CFO expelled
what law
what law: retribution
freedom of expression
what is maladministration
access to information
contact us
council corruption
nolan report
disclaimer
links
privacy policy
mud, dirt and filth
no, its a service request
£10K write off
council maladministration
misconduct news
sitemap