There were multiple errors in the way South Oxfordshire District Council considered an application for a replacement property in an area of outstanding natural beauty.

There were multiple errors in the way South Oxfordshire District Council considered an application for a replacement property in an area of outstanding natural beauty, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Jane Martin. In her report, issued today (5 August 2010) she says: “The Council recognised … that it had failed to deal with the first application properly…” and lists six specific errors.

She goes on:“It was only the action taken by [the complainants] on the advice of their legal team that prevented the Council from issuing a decision notice thereby granting planning permission with maladministration.”

‘Mr and Mrs Beech’ (not their real names for legal reasons) complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider its own policies, guidance and procedures when it resolved to grant planning permission to their neighbours to replace the existing bungalow with a larger, two-storey property.

The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice because the Council failed to:

• properly record a datum point for levels agreed with an officer on site
• ensure appropriate plans were submitted in accordance with earlier planning conditions
• notify Mr and Mrs Beech of a minor amendment to the planning application
• publicise an application as a departure from its development plan policy, or
• correctly report information to members.

This led to Mr and Mrs Beech losing confidence in the Council’s decision-making process and to believe that the building now near their home may not have been built had the Council properly considered the matter in 2006.

Subsequently, a largely new planning committee undertook a site visit (with the building almost complete) prior to considering the planning application afresh in 2008. Members had all relevant information, including the benefit of expert comments, and objections submitted by Mr and Mrs Beech both in writing and in person. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that their eventual decision to grant permission was made without maladministration.

In order to remedy the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs Beech, the Council should:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs Beech
• pay them £5,000 as a contribution to the costs they reasonably incurred in taking professional advice that led to the Council reviewing its original decision and acknowledging the faults
• pay them £500 as a contribution to their time and inconvenience in making a complaint to the Council and the Ombudsman, and
• review its procedures to prevent such a situation occurring again.

Report ref no 08 015 461

Article date: 05 August 2010