Complaint 9

Council’s Response

Local Government Ombudsman’s Response

28 June 2004


1. On 6th February 2004, Mr Webb sent a letter of complaint to the then Chief Executive, James Leivers (Appendix 1), with regard to several statements "H" (Senior Planning Control Officer) had raised in her Case Report to the Planning Committee, of Application Humber (DC/1316/03/WOL) on 16th January 2004 (Appendix 2).

1.2 Mr Webb also sent a further letter to "H" on 7th February 2004, amongst other matters, requested her full Case Report to the Planning Committee and any background papers supporting her statement (Appendix 3).

1.3 In response to Mr Webb's letter to "H", "I" (Compliance Officer) confirmed other matters raised within that letter and a copy of "H"'s full report would be sent to him (Appendix 4).

1.4 The Council refused application Number (DC/1316/03/WOL) on 16th January 2004. Mr & Mrs Webb had since appealed to the Secretary of State as to the decision of the Council and at the time of dictation of this complaint, it has been received by the Secretary State as a valid appeal.

1.5 On 1st June 2004, Mr Webb received a copy of the LPA's Grounds of Appeal statement (this statement was prepared by "H"), as part of the appeal to the Secretary of State, for their refusal of Application Number (DC/1316/03/WOL) (Appendix 5).

1.6 In response to the LPA's Grounds of Appeal, Mr Webb produced a response to their statement (Appendix 6).

1.7 The purpose of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. It is not to protect the private interests of one person (or a group of people) from the activities of another. The expression 'public interest' includes all public interests in the broadest sense including the national public interest. It must not be interpreted as referring only to the interests of the public locally. Because of the role of the First Secretary of State in planning decisions, LPA's must ensure that their decisions are consistent with Government policy. The LPA must conduct its planning functions in accordance with the Planning Acts such as the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and Regulations made under them) and with the relevant case law (interpretations made by the courts). Failure to do so could result in the Council's actions being challenged in the courts.

1.8 The criteria against which all planning applications are tested are often referred to as 'material planning considerations'. In preparing any comments on a particular application, it is important to know what these considerations are, as the Local Planning Authority is not allowed to consider non-planning arguments in reaching its decision on an application. The fact that a person may not like a particular proposal is not a material consideration. The following list provides some examples of non-planning matters;

1.9 In his letter to James Leivers, Mr Webb expressed his concerns as to several matters "H" had raised within her Case Report to the Planning Committee. In part 2 of her report she states:

"The dwelling (Application Number (DC/1316/03/WOL)) would be located in close proximity to the applicant's property at The Barns and would be sited next to the neighbour's house at Hilltop House. The outlook from The Barns would be detrimentally affected by the proposal given that the existing property is u-shaped with the open side facing the application site. The proposal would result in a greater sense of enclosure for the occupiers and in particular the outlook from the south west facing windows would be adversely affected."

1.10 She later recites her comments as a Reason for Refusal of Application Number (DC/1316/03/WOL):

"2 The design and siting of the proposed dwelling would result in an over-intensive and urban form of development which would result in a loss of outlook for occupiers at The Barns and a great sense of enclosure for the occupiers contrary to Policy H6 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan."

1.11 As pointed out in his Grounds of Appeal, Mr Webb clearly states that theses statements are not relevant material planning considerations, as he states:

"It must be pointed out here, that the occupiers of The Barns are the Appellants who are the owners of the said property. At no time did the Appellants present any objection to the LPA with regards to the possible loss of outlook and a greater sense of enclosure created by the proposal. The Case Officer had accorded her own opinions as to the possible quandary of the Appellants amenities without consultation. Therefore, these are the views of the Case Officer and Case Officer alone. If every application for Planning Permission were accorded with the opinion of the Case Officer with respect to the views of the Applicant, then this would give rise to the breach of rights of those Applicants. Hence, the Appellants believe that such comments are not a material planning consideration in this issue and refusal on this ground is, once more, entirely unjustifiable and should be dismissed."

1.12 In particular, Mr Webb in his last paragraph, raised issues as to her reporting of the site involving Application Number (DC/1316/03/WOL) where she claimed Mr Webb, "decided he no longer wanted a dwelling for his family on this site and he sold the land as a building plot. A second application was then submitted by the new owner and a revised dwelling was granted (DC/1007/00/WOL) and constructed." Mr Webb has never indicated to the LPA or anyone else for that matter, that he no longer wanted a dwelling for his family. This is purely conjecture by "H" that is not a material planning consideration and as a result, abused her powers in presenting such supposition that are not relevant material planning considerations, to the Planning Committee.

1.13 Her comments of Mr Webb selling the land as a building plot and where the new owner of the land submitted a second planning application for a "revised dwelling" under Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) is factually inaccurate. Again, she also claimed this once more within the LPA's Grounds of Appeal, paragraphs 5.19 and 5.22:

"The appellant was fully aware of the history of the site when he decided to sell the relevant land to another prospective housebuilder. The new owner then submitted a fresh application for a revised house design. This was approved under DC/1007/00/WOL and was implemented."

"The Council does not agree that application 08/93/0529 is still a valid planning permission as it cannot now be fully implemented. It has been overtaken by events, all in the control of the appellant as he decided to sell the land relating to the permission. Whilst 08/93/0529 was commenced, it was never fully implemented as the appellant decided he no longer wanted a dwelling for his family on this site and sold the land as a building plot."

1.14 It is quite evident that the land attached to Application Number (08/93/0529) is some 1 acres plus in size. Thirty percent of this land was sold to the applicant of Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL). Therefore, "H"'s comments in this particular part of her Case Report is also unjustified, as Mr Webb did not sell all of the land contained within Application Number (08/93/0529), to the applicant of (DC/1007/00/WOL), as she claims. "H" never fully investigated the historical circumstances surrounding the land in question. Her comments again, were one of conjecture and not fact. Again, she abused her powers, as she never fully considered the circumstances surrounding the land. Her comments were another attempt to mislead the Planning Committee as to the understanding of Application Number (DC/1316/03/WOL), which will be vindicated later in this complaint.

1.15 "H" has access to the Planning Register and is fully aware of the planning history of Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL), hence her comments. What she does not disclose, as a matter of truth, is that Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) was the subject of a Certificate B under Article 7 of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (Appendix 7). The certificate certifies that the applicant had given requisite notice to the owners of the land to which any part of the application relates. This clearly indicates that at the time of Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL), Mr Webb was indeed the owner of the land to which the application related. Therefore her comments that Mr Webb sold his land to a third party whom then applied for planning permission is deceit. It is evident that the applicant of Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) was not the owner of the land at the time of this application for planning permission and "H" had stated factual inaccuracies as to the ownership of the land, not only to members of the Planning Committee but also the Secretary of State, in an attempt to pervert the outcome of the planning application and planning appeal.

1.16 "H" also claimed that Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) was a "revised" version of Application Number (08/93/0529). Revised would mean the modification of existing rights of the earlier planning permission. Since the applicant was not the owner of the land at the time of his application, then it was the duty of the LPA to contemplate such an application with due regard for the earlier permission if what they now assert is the same planning permission. It is therefore quite obvious that "H"'s statement in this particular matter is most blatantly misleading, as she is in the full knowledge of "T"'s (Law and Democratic Services Officer) letter dated 22nd January 2003 (Appendix 8), where he categorically states the Council's legal position, as requested by the LPA, as to the status of these two planning permissions:

"Application DC/1007/00/WOL was subsequently submitted for the erection of a detached house and detached double garage. This application was independent of the earlier application 08/93/0529. It was approved on 12 March 2001."

1.17 It would appear in this matter that "H" is uninhibited in her obstinate reporting of inaccurate information to the Planning Committee and the Secretary of State, in an attempt to further pervert the outcome of the planning application and planning appeal despite been in the knowledge of and consequently undermining legal advice of the Council's Law and Democratic Services department, contrary to the Council's legitimate interest. This is an abuse of power and maladministration constituting gross misconduct.

1.18 In Section 5.21 of the Council's Grounds of Appeal, "H" states, "The Section 106 Agreement attached to 08/93/529 has effectively been satisfied as the dwelling granted under DC/1007/00/WOL is the replacement for Walk Farm Cottage." As stated in Mr Webb's response to the LPA's Grounds of Appeal, this Section 106 agreement contains a covenant not to erect on the site at any time any further dwelling or dwellings, other than the permitted development under Application Number (08/93/0529). Therefore, Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) was not permitted by the Section 106 agreement because it was a further dwelling on the site. To be "satisfied", the Section 106 agreement would require modification of that agreement to incorporate Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL). This would require an agreement between all persons whom the agreement is enforceable, as per Section 106A (1) of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Such an agreement must be made by deed, as per Section 106A (2) of the same Act. Mr Webb has never received an application from the LPA as to the modification of that agreement.

1.19 Therefore, it is quite evident that this agreement has not been "satisfied" in anyway to render Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) as the replacement dwelling for Walk Farm Cottage. Again, "H" is unconstrained in her willful, ill-disciplined reporting of misleading information to the Planning Committee and the Secretary of State, in a further attempt to pervert the outcome of the planning application and planning appeal, contrary to planning legislation and the Council's legitimate interest. This is also an abuse of power and maladministration constituting gross misconduct.

1.20 Extraordinarily, "H" in Section 5.19 of the Council's Grounds of Appeal claims the Section 106 agreement is "redundant". As discussed in the latter sections of this complaint, such an agreement is the subject to the legislative mechanism of Section 106A of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and by no means can the Council make a law of contract "redundant". Incredibly, she also states that in Section 5.16 of the LPA's Grounds of Appeal, "that the implementation of that permission (Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL)) effectively made the previous Agreement redundant." There is nothing within The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or any other Act that bestows the power to relinquish a Section 106 agreement on the implementation of a planning permission. Equally, there is no prerequisite within that Section 106 agreement of such an abandonment through the implementation of another planning permission.

1.21 If what she asserts as been "redundant" a little earlier, what relevance has her comments as to the same Section 106 agreement been "satisfied"? Yet again, it would appear that even advice from the LPA to Mr Webb, in a letter dated 20th January 2003 (Appendix 9) that states, "Application no. DC/1007/00/WOL was not approved to a Section 106 Agreement.", has been considered extraneous by "H". It is quite clear that she has willfully neglected legislation contained with Section 106A of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and arrives at opposing and therefore conflicting statements in her reports to ultimately prejudice the case against Mr Webb - in essence, an wholly misrepresented 'catch all' scenario.

1.22 Mr Webb is perplexed as to her reporting of the Section 106 agreement that was binded to the land of his home - 'The Barns', in her Case Report and then further in Section 5.17 of the Council's Grounds of Appeal. Quite clearly she indicates that the agreement had been allowed and therefore discharged. As discussed in Section 1.8 of this complaint, such annotations are not material planning considerations, as they have no relevance whatsoever to the planning application and planning appeal. This particular issue is a subject of another complaint to North East Lincolnshire Council but it must be said here, for clarity, that the Council did indeed make objections to that particular appeal, contrary to "H"'s claim of "no objection". However, despite not been a material planning consideration, Mr Webb fails to see what significance such comments are in such reporting to the Planning Committee and the Secretary of State. It is Mr Webb's contention that this was nothing more than a ploy by "H" through willful inaccurate reporting, to cloud the perception of not only the planning application but also the planning appeal in relation to the relevant Section 106 agreement at the heart of that planning application and planning appeal.

1.23 Section 6.3 of the Council's Grounds of Appeal, concerns Mr Webb's application to the Secretary of State. "H" states:

"On the appeal forms at Section F.5 the appellant states that the appeal relates to the Council's refusal to approve any matter required by a condition on a previous planning permission. The planning application to which the appeal relates, however, is a full planning application for the erection of a dwelling and integral garage, it does not relate to a condition attached to a previous permission."

1.24 When Mr Webb submitted his planning application (Application Number (DC/1316/03/WOL)) on 17th October 2003, it was accompanied with a letter, which was addressed to "G" (Head of Development and Environmental Protection) (Appendix 10). In this letter, Mr Webb described his justification for such a planning application, as he states:

"An application has been submitted to the LPA, to change the position and size of the building outlined in application number 08/93/0529, since condition 8 can not be accorded to. Application number 08/93/0529 had deemed to have commenced due to the demolishing of the former house. You corroborate this in writing, a little time later after the planning permission had been implemented. Application number 08/93/0529 has neither been revoked nor the subject of a completion notice, and is therefore still a valid planning permission."

1.25 Having provided the LPA with a justification of such an application, if the LPA deemed that the planning application forms were incorrectly completed then as per the Council's 'Development and Control Charter' (Appendix 11), Mr Webb should have been notified within 10 working days, of the application date, of its invalidation with an explanation of how this could have been corrected. Mr Webb never received any correspondence from the LPA as to any matter of incorrect application forms and the planning application was allowed to progress. As stated earlier, Mr Webb justified his position as to his planning application in his letter to "G". It is the duty of Council Officers to give advice and guide customers of the Council. Mr Webb finds it most disdainful that "H" is now blaming him for her inapt and contemptuous actions at this particular stage of the appeal process, where the blame quite clearly lies with her through breaches of Council policy and procedures.

1.26 Having due regard to what has been discussed above and in particular "H"'s own beliefs of Mr Webb's planning application in Section 1.24 of this complaint, as been invalid. The planning application forms for Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) (Appendix 12), in her view would also have been invalid, although willingly accepted by the LPA as an application for a 'Full planning permission' and not one of 'Renewal of a temporary permission or permission for retention of building or continuance of use without complying with a condition subject to which planning permission has been granted', as it is her belief that the latter planning application was a revised application of the earlier planning permission.

1.27 Therefore, "H"'s comments in the Council's Grounds of Appeal are unwarranted and therefore unjustified, as what she now tries to infer could have been resolved at the commencement of the planning application as per the 'Development and Control Charter'. This ultimately proves her malicious and unprofessional attitude towards Mr Webb.

1.28 As discussed earlier in this complaint, "H" in her Case Report to the Planning Committee and in the Council's Grounds of Appeal to the Secretary of State is claiming that Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) is a "revised" application of Application Number (08/93/0529). Therefore, it is the Council's contention that Mr Webb cannot rely on his justification for a further dwelling on the site as outlined in his letter to "G". If this was the case, then such an application would have then to be considered by the LPA in tandem with Section 106 agreement. Section 1.15 of this complaint, quite clearly proves that the applicant was not the owner of the land at the time of his planning application. If the LPA were to duly consider Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) as a "revised" application of Application Number (08/93/0529) then Mr Webb, as the owner of that planning permission, had to be consulted. Such revision would require modification of existing rights of Application Number (08/93/0529), as discussed earlier, through either a 'standard procedure' or an 'unopposed procedure' as prescribed by Section 97 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Section 106 agreement pertaining to the earlier permission would also need modification to incorporate the later planning permission, or as they deem fit, the LPA could discharge this agreement in its entirety. Any such modifications would require Mr Webb's consent as the landowner.

1.29 No such modification of Application Number (08/93/0529) had ever taken place in relation to Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) Evidently, this further provides further vindication that Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) is indeed a full planning permission that is independent of Application Number (08/93/0529), as indicated by the Council in Section 1.16 of this complaint. Since Application Number (08/93/0529) had been implemented, as per Section 56 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 due to the demolition of the former house and various other works, this particular planning permission remains alive and therefore intact.

1.30 Having carefully considered her Case Report and the Council's Grounds of Appeal, "H" has not considered to any extent or made any relevant reference to planning legislation to support the Council's argument. "H" and the LPA rely on terminology of words such as "considered" and "it is felt" which has no bearing in planning law and therefore not material to the planning application. This terminology is nothing more than that of personal opinion. The Council have made it explicitly clear that Mr & Mrs Webb's application for planning permission (Application Number (DC/1316/03/WOL)) is been treated as an independent application, hence their Reasons for Refusal, which is contrary to the justification provided by Mr Webb in his letter to "G", dated 17th October 2003 and on that basis have prepared an argument that is based on personal criticism of the applicant, untruths and conjecture.

1.31 On 7th February 2004, Mr Webb requested to "H" for copies of her background papers of her Case Report to the Planning Committee. In reply, she gave "I" a copy of her Case Report without any background papers. Mr Webb is fully aware in her Case Report that "H" had considered other non-planning considerations of that particular planning application. Therefore, she must have used background papers to arrive at those non-planning considerations, especially the issue of the Section 106 agreement purporting to The Barns property. It is also apparent that other documents including consultation with other statutory bodies have not also been forthcoming.

1.32 Part 4 (8) of the Council's Constitution states:

The proper officer will set out in every report a list of those documents (called background papers) relating to the subjectmatter of the report which in his/her opinion:

1.33 Quite clearly, "H" is relying upon information that could only be obtained from background papers. Contrary to the Council's Constitution, it is quite evident that "H" has abused her position in this particular matter, divergent to the Council's legitimate interest.

1.34 All planning applications are entered in a Planning Register, which the LPA is required by law to keep, as prescribed by Section 69 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Such planning applications in the Planning Register may also contain any maps, plans and background documents. The register must be kept at the principal office of the LPA and must be available for inspection by the public 'at all reasonable hours'.

1.35 On 8th June 2004, Mr Webb visited the LPA department to view Building Regulation Approval files. Whilst he was there, he also requested to view the file of Application Number (08/93/0529). Unfortunately, this file was not available and Mr Webb was asked to return the following day. When Mr Webb returned the following day, the receptionist handed this planning file to Mr Webb for his perusal. Having studied the file, Mr Webb wished to have copies of several documents made. The receptionist stated to Mr Webb that, "I have been informed by admin that you can't have a copy of the documents." Mr Webb questioned the receptionist and told her that such information in this planning file is public information and then again requested copies of it. The receptionist then consulted another person in the office and then returned and advised Mr Webb that she would have to speak with "H". Mr Webb confirmed with the receptionist that "H" was indeed "H".

1.36 She then called "H" by telephone in an adjoining room and explained to her that Mr Webb required copies of two documents (Appendix 13). The receptionist returned and stated that Mr Webb was able to have copies of one document but not the other. Mr Webb insisted that he had copies of both documents. The receptionist returned to the telephone and spoke with "H" once more. She again returned and stated that "H" demanded to know why Mr Webb wanted copies of both documents as she claimed they were both the same, which clearly they are not. Mr Webb then again reiterated that such documents are in the public domain and therefore he was entitled to copies of each of those documents. The receptionist then returned to speak with "H" who then conceded to allow Mr Webb copies of both documents.

1.37 It is quite evident that Mr Webb was obstructed in his requests by "admin" and then by "H". These documents pertain to a planning permission obtained by Mr Webb and was not exempt information. Mr Webb was made to feel disparaged and embarrassed during his requests, not only in front of the receptionist but also members of the public who were also present at the reception. Mr Webb is bemused as to the fact that "admin" had tried to stop him from copying any documents. Therefore, it appears that "admin" had been warned of Mr Webb's impending visit and were told to reject any request from him. This is an abuse of power by "admin" and "H" causing maladministration. With reference to other complaints by Mr Webb, it is undeniable that Officers of this LPA are continually being obstructive to Mr Webb requests for information, which he is entitled to see and/or copy.

1.38 Planning Officers responsible for the preparation of written reports and for advising Members at Committee meetings will be qualified to an appropriate level in Town Planning. Whether or not they are Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute (R.T.P.I) they will be required to undertake continued professional development to a level required by the R.T.P.I. Both "H"'s and "G"'s perverse dealings in these matters, have also brought the Council into disrepute with The Royal Town Planning Institute Code of Professional Conduct as described in the Council's document "Probity in Planning". Within this document, The Chartered Object of the Royal Town Planning Institute purpose is to advance the science and art of town planning for the benefit of the public. It is the purpose of this Code, that is embraced by the Council, set out in the document, to ensure that in all their professional activities members of the Royal Town Planning Institute:

1.39 The Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular Article 6, is concerned with guaranteeing procedural fairness in the determination of civil rights and obligations, especially the entitlement to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. These principles are at the heart of the planning system. Full regard has been paid to the Human Rights Act 1998 in drawing up policy's and procedures contained in the Council's Constitution and adherence to the Constitution should help to ensure that these principles are translated into the day-to-day operation of the planning system and that there are no breaches of the Act.

1.40 As per North East Lincolnshire Council's Constitution, "H" and "G" have brought the Council into disrepute in these matters. It is evident in these particular matters that they have not afforded Mr Webb the fairness and consistency in the treatment as an individual and were unjustified in their action against him. They have not assisted in the effective operation of the Council and inappropriately used Council resources in what can only be described as a personal vendetta against Mr Webb. They were also negligent in carrying out duties in accordance with relevant policies and procedures and displayed personal conducts of unacceptable standards. The Officer's Code of Conduct states that they must act in a manner, which is not contrary to the Council's legitimate interest, in particular to report or record any matter in respect of which there is a duty to report or record. This alone constitutes Gross Misconduct in the fact that they had negligently and willfully failed to comply with the legal requirements of the Council and legislation contained in The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and The Town and Country Planning (Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligations) 1992 and The Local Government Act 1972, as amended by The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

Return to top


Investigating Officer's Findings and Conclusion

Complaint section Findings Action/Outcome
Sections 1.12, 1.13 and 1.14
"H"'s breach of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contrary to Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 “Whether or not it is his intention in the future to build a dwelling house for his family is irrelevant, the facts are a plot of land was sold and the house was built by a third party… this comment could be construed to be misleading because of what it says.” No action.
Sections 1.15, 1.16 and 1.17
"H"'s factual inaccuracies concerning Article 7 of the Town and Country (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, contrary to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 “Mr Webb was notified by the applicant as owner of the land of the application being made which was for full planning permission and clearly, as this person was at the time a perspective purchaser, Mr Webb then sold the land upon which Hilltop House is now built.” No action.
Sections 1.18 and 1.19
"H"'s willful neglect of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contrary to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Not investigated.
Sections 1.20 and 1.21
"H"'s factual inaccuracies concerning Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contrary to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 “In respect of these particular complaints there may be some case for concern that the statements made do not have full grounding in fact and may construe that Mr Webb was in some way disadvantaged by this information being put forward.” “I can only suggest here that a further assessment is made of the legal implications of Mr Webb's complaints and that in future Officers are advised to carefully check any statements made within Committee Reports for accuracy and grounding in background documents.”

No response.
Section 1.22
"H"'s breach of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contrary to Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Not investigated.
Sections 1.23, 1.24, 1.25, 1.26 and 1.27
"H"'s factual inaccuracies contrary to the Council's Development and Control Charter document and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 “It does appear that there are some factual inaccuracies in Ms Heweth's report to the Planning Committee…” No action.
Sections 1.28, 1.29, and 1.30
"H"'s factual inaccuracies contrary to Sections 97 and 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 “It is clear to me that there is some considerable difference between considering a variation to an original permission and for a new dwelling…” “If what Mr Webb states is correct and that he was not informed of this change of description, then this matter should be looked into further and I would suggest the advice of the Legal Department sought on the validity of this claim.”

No response.
Sections 1.31, 1.32, 1.33, 1.34, 1.35 and 1.36
"H"'s non disclosure of information contrary to The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 and Parts 4 and 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 “In terms of the Council's constitution referred to in Part 1, 3.2, in respect of Planning Committee Reports it would be expected that background papers would be contained either within the planning application file itself or in the relevant history files, Development Plan documents etc.” No action.
Sections 1.37, 1.38, 1.39 and 1.40
"H"'s willful obstruction to information contrary Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Not investigated.
Investigating Officer's Conclusion “I consider Mr Webb is correct in his complaint that some of the information given at Committee was not entirely correct… It is, however, important the Council check its constitution to ensure it allows for the proper functioning of the Planning Committee. I consider that the Planning Officer, in dealing with the application, concerned herself with matters appropriate to the decision being made and that this part of the complaint should also not be upheld.” “I would also recommend that the legal implications of Mr Webb's complaints should be considered by the Council's Solicitor.”

No response.

Return to top


Local Government Ombudsman's Findings and Conclusion

Complaint section Findings Action/Outcome
Sections 1.12, 1.13 and 1.14
"H"'s breach of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contrary to Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Sections 1.15, 1.16 and 1.17
"H"'s factual inaccuracies concerning Article 7 of the Town and Country (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, contrary to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Sections 1.18 and 1.19
"H"'s willful neglect of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contrary to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Sections 1.20 and 1.21
"H"'s factual inaccuracies concerning Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contrary to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Section 1.22
"H"'s breach of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contrary to Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Sections 1.23, 1.24, 1.25, 1.26 and 1.27
"H"'s factual inaccuracies contrary to the Council's Development and Control Charter document and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Sections 1.28, 1.29, and 1.30
"H"'s factual inaccuracies contrary to Sections 97 and 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Sections 1.31, 1.32, 1.33, 1.34, 1.35 and 1.36
"H"'s non disclosure of information contrary to The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 and Parts 4 and 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Sections 1.37, 1.38, 1.39 and 1.40
"H"'s willful obstruction to information contrary Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council's Constitution.		 Refused to investigate.
Local Government Ombudsman's Conclusion “As explained above, the Local Government Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint about a matter where an appeal has been exercised to a Government Minister. I appreciate that your complaint is more generally about a perception of bias by the Council against you and that you are not seeking specific compensation for the problems you have bee caused. However, for the reasons given above, the Local Government Ombudsman cannot, or would not, investigate your complaints further, even if there has been mistakes made by the Council in its dealings with you.” No action.

Return to top


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