LGO tells council to pay out £31k for "significant failing in corporate governance"

The Local Government Ombudsman has recommended that a local authority pay £31,000 to a complainant after a “very significant failing of corporate governance” in the council's granting of planning permission for extensions.

The Ombudsman, Anne Seex, also called on Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council to ensure officers and councillors were aware of the public law principles that apply to decisions by public authorities.

The LGO had received complaints from two householders in different parts of the town about the granting of planning permission for large extensions next to their terraced houses.

A subsequent investigation by the Ombudsman found that:

• A director granted the planning permissions based on reports by planning officers;
• In both cases, officers did not apply the council’s published planning policies;
• The planning officers’ manager had told them that previous decisions by some councillors to allow large extensions in terraced properties should override the policies;
• The manager also told officers they should recommend planning permission for large extensions as that was what some councillors wanted;
• Planning officers followed this instruction and did not use their own professional judgement.

One of the extensions was two storeys high and four metres long, with a further 1.75 metres of single storey beyond. It impacted significantly on the next door householder.

The £31,000 payment should be made to this complainant in recognition of the prospective loss over the next 20 years of 9,000 hours of being able to enjoy sunlight in their yard, the Ombudsman said. She suggested it would be unjust to recommend that Bolton consider revoking this permission.

The second extension – which would create a single-storey brick wall cutting across the view from the neighbour’s kitchen window at an angle of 20 degrees – has not yet been built.

In this case the LGO recommended that Bolton consider revoking the permission. She added that the council, If the extension were to be built, should pay to move the second householder’s kitchen window and all associated costs.

Seex said: “[This was] systemic maladministration that debases the planning system, corrupts the proper roles of elected councillors and officials, and represents a significant failing of corporate governance.”

She added: “The council should acknowledge the serious and corrosive nature of the systemic maladministration identified by this investigation. It should ensure that all officers and councillors are aware of the public law principles that apply to decisions by public authorities and that its officers, in particular its planning officers, are able to give advice in accordance with their professional opinions and judgements.”

The LGO said Bolton’s maladministration arose because in both cases the officers’ reports “did not deal with relevant, site-specific planning issues and did not apply the council’s policies or give reasons why they should not apply”.

Under Bolton’s constitution, the director did not have the power to grant planning permission in breach of policy, she added.

Seex argued that the cause of the maladministration was the instruction given by senior officers, rather than errors, neglect or incompetence by the relatively junior planning officers who assessed the planning applications.