LGO slams councils for "incompetence and neglect" in cattle barn planning case

The Local Government Ombudsman has sharply criticised a former district council and its successor unitary authority after officers wrongly granted planning permission for cattle-rearing buildings in a small rural hamlet.

In a report the Ombudsman, Anne Seex, said residents had lost the peaceful enjoyment of their homes because of “incompetence and neglect”.

Seex said the unitary, Durham County Council, should commission an independent assessment on the buildings' impact and then consider whether to remove or amend the planning permission for all three buildings. The LGO also recommended that Durham repay significant sums of council tax to the complainants.

The case initially involved Teesdale District Council, a predecessor authority to Durham that granted planning permission for two buildings at the location.

The LGO’s investigation found that officers “had no authority to give the permissions and did not impose any conditions to protect the amenity of nearby homes”. The buildings housed up to 120 veal calves.

For a number of years, residents who lived 60-100 metres from the buildings complained to the council about the smell and noise from the animals as well as related activities.

The LGO investigation accused the council of failing to respond or to evaluate the evidence of nuisance. Seex said she had found “incontrovertible evidence” that the council did not keep adequate records of contacts with residents. The residents recorded more than 140 contacts, while the authority only recorded five.

In March 2010 the residents formally complained to Durham County Council. The LGO investigation found that a senior manager arranged noise monitoring, but did not investigate the lack of response to previous complaints.

The monitoring only suggested a “borderline possible nuisance”, in part because the owner of the buildings had reduced the number of cattle there and begun to mix feed behind the buildings (which contributed to a lower level of noise). Durham’s Environmental Health Service chose not to take any further action.

However, the residents continued to complain about the noise and nuisance from the 15 or so cattle on the site. The senior manager and the council’s head of planning knew about the previous concerns from residents and councillors, one of whom accused the officers of dismissing the evidence out of hand.

In July 2010 Durham County Council’s area planning committee approved a planning application for a third building that could house 240 cattle. The LGO concluded that this was done on the basis of a “seriously and inexcusably deficient” officers’ report.

“Among many faults, it did not mention the number of cattle that could be housed in the existing buildings or in the new building, the impact on neighbouring homes, or the history of complaints about the site,” the LGO said.

The Ombudsman concluded in her report that:

• Teesdale officers were wrong to have granted the first two planning applications and that its Environmental Health Service had failed to record and respond to the residents’ complaints about the impact on them;
• Durham had failed to properly investigate residents’ concerns that their repeated complaints had not been dealt with properly, and that it was wrong to grant planning permission for the third building; and
• There had been maladministration causing injustice.

Seex called on Durham to commission an independent assessment of the impact of unrestricted use of the two existing buildings, the likely impact of the third building, and the measures that could be taken – if any – to reduce the impact.

The authority should then consider whether to remove or amend the various planning permissions, she said.

The LGO also recommended that Durham pay each household the council tax due on their properties from January 2006 to March 2010, and 50% of the tax due from March 2010 to the date it reaches a decision based on the independent assessment. Seex also urged the authority to pay £2,120 to each household.

The Ombudsman added that Durham should investigate what she described as “two instances of serious wrongdoing” that emerged during her investigation. These were the removal of letters from planning files and an officer claiming to have sent a letter to residents in 2009 when it had only been created in 2011 during her investigation.

The county council issued a full and unreserved apology to the residents and said it would act swiftly on implementation of the LGO’s recommendations.

The council’s Director of regeneration and economic development, Ian Thompson, said: “I am extremely sorry that residents living alongside the development have had to tolerate unacceptable noise and smell pollution over a number of years. While issuing a full and frank apology I would also like to reassure everyone that we are acting immediately on the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

“We have already taken action regarding a number of issues relating to both the historic handling of the matter by the district council and our failings regarding subsequent complaints. In addition we will take further steps to ensure the public can have faith in our processes and record keeping.”

The council is also to hold face-to-face meetings with the affected residents.

A statement issued on behalf of the residents said they were “staggered” by the evidence contained in the LGO report.

The residents added: “We are however, very thankful that Durham now accepts the seriousness of what went wrong and what we’ve had to endure from this intensive cattle site over the last six years. More importantly we are glad the council now acknowledges the ongoing impact that this intensive site has on us.

“Owing to the serious gravity of the LGO’s findings, we are confident that the council will rectify the situation in our village, and will fully implement the Ombudsman recommendations, including the permanent removal of all three barns on the site. Removal of the barns is the only way to stop the ongoing, daily horrendous disturbance from this intensive site on our family lives.”

The statement said the residents were relieved to be exonerated about their claims, which they said had been “repeatedly ridiculed” over a six-year period.

“This catalogue of repeated council failings have meant that for the last six years, we have been forced to live opposite all this site’s noise, stench, slurry, muck and constant disturbance,” they added.