LGO urges county council to pay up over waste transfer station

The Local Government Ombudsman has criticised Essex County Council for refusing to compensate residents who live next to a waste transfer station.

In 2006 the then Ombudsman concluded that Essex and Epping Forest District Council had been at fault when the county council granted a licence for the station.

He found that Epping Forest had given wrong advice when it said the waste transfer station had an established use. The LGO also criticised Essex for granting a licence without taking adequate steps to ensure the advice was soundly based.

The two authorities accepted that injustice had been caused to two residents who complained to the Ombudsman and who suffered noise nuisance from vehicle movements.

Essex and Epping agreed to share the cost of paying £15,000 and £100,000 to the two residents.

In the current case another couple, Mr & Mrs R, also lived close to the site (directly opposite its entrance). They were said to suffer the same nuisance as the other residents who had received compensation.

Mr & Mrs R had been among the residents in 1999 who had complained to Epping Forest. In 2008 they contacted the district council to obtain a payout similar to those given to other residents.

Epping Forest refused so Mr & Mrs R complained to the LGO.

The Ombudsman, Anne Seex, said she was satisfied that they would have received payments if they had complained in 2006 along with the other residents. The previous Ombudsman had used his powers to accept Mr & Mrs R’s complaint, even though it had been submitted late.

She therefore asked the two authorities to obtain a report from an independent valuer. This suggested that Mr & Mrs R’s home had been reduced in value by £30,000.

Epping Forest accepted the valuation and paid £12,000. But Essex has so far refused to pay the balance.

Seex has now recommended that the county council pay the other £18,000.

In its submissions to the LGO, Essex argued that a financial remedy should not be paid.

Among the arguments it deployed were: the property was well screened from the waste transfer station; the traffic impact was from nearby nurseries and not the station; the problems did not deter Mr & Mrs R from buying additional land; the value of the home had not reduced by £30,000; and there would be a significant impact on operational services to accommodate a payment in the current economic climate.

Both Mr & Mrs R’s solicitor and Epping Forest challenged what the county council said. In particular the district council said it was hard to see why Mr & Mrs R should not be compensated when a resident who lived further away had received a payment.

An Essex County Council spokesman said: "The council acknowledges the Ombudsman's report and will consider if the conclusion is one it agrees with. The arguments put forward by the county council against the payment were very strong but it will now decide if the final conclusions of Ombudsman change this.

“The council will only make a financial payment in line with the recommendations if it is satisfied that the council was in fact responsible for any financial loss suffered or if there are other strong reasons why the compensation should be paid."