LGO urges council to pay out over flawed grant of planning permission for bungalow

A local authority that granted planning permission in a flawed way for the building of a bungalow should pay its neighbours the difference in value of their property before and after construction of the new dwelling, the Local Government Ombudsman has recommended.

The complainants lived in a village, part of which is a designated conservation area. Their property was at the end of the village envelope, outside of the conservation area.

Melton Borough Council granted planning permission for a bungalow to be built on farm land next to their home. ‘Mr and Mrs R’ complained to the council and a revocation meeting was held to consider the application and decision, but the decision to approve the application remained the same.

Mr and Mrs R then complained to the LGO, Dr Jane Martin, that the development affected their enjoyment of their home and garden and they were misled over the revocation meeting which raised their expectations that the decision could be altered.

The LGO report found that the applicant’s reasons for wishing to build a new bungalow included that he was elderly, had disabled status and declining mobility, and that his existing home was subject to multiple flooding.

Government advice is that permissions granted just because of the circumstances of the applicant should only be granted “exceptionally”.

The Ombudsman considered why the committee approved the application, contrary to the substantial planning history, to the Council’s own policies and to the officers’ recommendation.

The minuted decision said the proposal was acceptable “due to the specific circumstances of the applicant”, and this was carried through to the recorded reason for the permission, which said: “the development having been permitted due to the personal circumstances of the applicant”.

The LGO, Dr Jane Martin, said she recognised that a planning committee was within its rights, exceptionally, to grant a personal permission and to decide that the “scarcely ever by justified” test was passed.

“But the tests are very stern tests and it seems to me that, in taking such a decision, a planning committee should be very sure of the personal circumstances on which it intends to base its decision,” she added. “In most cases I would expect to see an officer’s objective evaluation of the circumstances so that the members’ decision is soundly based on evidence. In the case of this application, the officers’ report did not contain such an evaluation.”

The LGO said that in the absence of such an objective evaluation of the basis for the applicant’s claimed circumstances, she believed that the decision was flawed with maladministration.

Dr Martin also said that given the importance of the issue, she would have expected the minute of the meeting to set out clearly the detailed personal circumstances which swayed members. This failure was also maladministration, she concluded.

The LGO considered what the outcome would have been had the proper process been followed. She decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the members would not have granted permission. In coming to this view, Dr Martin took into account the fact that the applicant’s then home remains occupied.

“This suggests to me that, had members been fully informed of the situation in respect of flooding, they may well have concluded that the case was not made,” she said. “The complainants’ injustice is that their home is now next to a dwelling which should not have been built there.”

Dr Martin found there was no maladministration in relation to the revocation hearing, but suggested that the council should have been clearer with the complainants about the reason for the meeting.

The LGO recommended that Melton BC should, in addition to paying the difference arising from the ‘before and after’ valuation on the property, pay the complainants £500 for their time and trouble in pursing their complaint.

Philip Hoult