Source: https://www.rottencouncil.co.uk/north-east-lincolnshire-council-complaint-1/
Timestamp: 2017-10-22 08:22:43
Document Index: 233095638

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5']

Complaint 1 | North East Lincolnshire Council | Rottencouncil.co.uk
1. On 1st December 2000, an application for planning permission was submitted by a third party under Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) for the erection of a detached house and garage on land owned by Mr Webb, adjacent to The Barns, Walk Lane, Irby upon Humber.
1.1 As per the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Mr Webb was notified of the application by the LPA and the time limit to which he could make comments on the proposal. This statutory period ended on 19th January 2001. Mr Webb viewed the plans of the proposal that were numbered RD.1158.01 (Appendix 1), RD.1158.02 (Appendix 2) and RD.1158.03 (Appendix 3). After studying the proposals, Mr Webb was quite satisfied with the design of the proposal and made no comment.
1.2 Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) received full planning permission on 12th March 2001 (Appendix 4). On 13th March, “W” (Senior Planning Officer) instructed “C” (Building Control Officer) to check the ‘marking out’ of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) on site, as indicated by her writing and initials on the site plan. “C” was in receipt of a site plan numbered RD.1158.03A (Appendix 5). This plan contained measurements defined by “W” of the correct measurements taken from the plan. The Building Control Officer made physical measurements of the site and noted them under “W”‘s measurements. These measurements were different.
1.3 In November 2001, it came to the attention of Mr Webb that the house and garage built under Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) had been moved and the design of the proposal had been dramatically altered that constituted a breach of Planning Control. On 13th November 2001 a letter of complaint was sent to “R” (Director of Environmental Services) (Appendix 6) stating the resiting of the dwelling, garage and driveway and particularly the overshoot of rainwater off the garage roof onto Mr Webb’s property, contrary to the approved plans.
1.4 Mr Webb did not receive a reply to his letter until the 8th January 2002, some 7 weeks later, where he received a letter from “M” (Enforcement Officer) (Appendix 7) who informed Mr Webb that the matter was now been addressed. The applicant of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) was also sent a letter (dated 8th January 2001) referring to the breach of Planning Control (Appendix 8). The applicant then submitted revised plans showing the relocation of the house, garage and driveway. Mr Webb was then given the opportunity to address his concerns, in particular the position of the garage, through his letter of material objection dated 14th March 2002 (Appendix 9).
1.5 This amendment, was approved on the 21st March 2002 as being described as ‘minor nature’, under delegated powers, in “S”‘s (Senior Enforcement Officer) letter to Mr Webb (Appendix 10), dated 5th April 2002.
1.6 At the time of ‘marking out’ of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) as described in Section 1.2, “W” was fully aware of the nature of the alterations from the original planning application submitted. Despite been a breach of Planning Control, where Condition 12 of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) (Appendix 4) states, “The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications unless otherwise specified in the attached conditions. Reason: To ensure that the development as implemented is in accordance with the approved details and results in a satisfactory form of development.”, “W” fails to make the applicant adhere to the approved plans by either making the applicant move the house, garage and driveway to conform with the plans at the time of ‘marking out’, or require the applicant to submit new plans showing the new positions as an amendment to the original application. Therefore she never gave Mr Webb the opportunity of addressing these matters prior to the house and garage been built until he raised his concerns in his letter dated 13th November 2001 to the Director of Environmental Services, after the garage and house had been built.
1.7 In his letter dated 6th June 2002 (Appendix 11) to Councillor “Q”, “G” makes it explicitly clear that he has full knowledge of his officers actions and intentions in any planning matter as he states, in relation to another planning application, “At no time has she (“W”) acted independently given the internal mechanisms that exist for such matters to be discussed with colleagues and supervisors.” It can be deduced from “G”‘s comments that he is fully aware of all matters concerning his department, as Head of Development and Environmental Protection.
1.8 As per North East Lincolnshire Council’s Constitution, “W” and “G” have brought the Council into disrepute in this matter. The Officer’s Code of Conduct states that they must act in a manner which is not contrary to the Council’s legitimate interest, in particular to report or record any matter in respect of which there is a duty to report or record, with particular relevance to the Section 1.6 of this complaint, where they had an obligation to uphold Section 187A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, due to the breach of Condition 12. This alone constitutes Gross Misconduct in the fact that they had negligently or willfully failed to comply with the legal requirements of the Council and legislation contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
1.9 Planning Officers responsible for the preparation of written reports and for advising Members at Committee meetings will be qualified to an appropriate level in Town Planning. Whether or not they are Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute (R.T.P.I) they will be required to undertake continued professional development to a level required by the R.T.P.I. Both “W”‘s and “G”‘s perverse dealings in these matters, have also brought the Council into disrepute with The Royal Town Planning Institute Code of Professional Conduct as described in the Council’s document “Probity in Planning”. Within this document, The Chartered Object of the Royal Town Planning Institute purpose is to advance the science and art of town planning for the benefit of the public. It is the purpose of this Code, that is embraced by the Council, set out in the document, to ensure that in all their professional activities members of the Royal Town Planning Institute:
1.10 In Section 1.3 of this complaint, Mr Webb complained of the design and siting of the house, garage and driveway. It is quite evident from the Planning Register from the plans that Mr Webb viewed in December 2000 are not the plans that were approved on the 12th March 2001. Drawing Numbers RD.1158.01 (Appendix 1), RD.1158.02 (Appendix 2) and RD.1158.03 (Appendix 3) are not the approved plans of Planning Application Number (DC/1007/00/WOL) but are of revised plans received by “W” on 13th February 2001 under Drawing Numbers RD.1158.03A (Appendix 3), RD.1158.04 (Appendix 12) and RD.1158.05 (Appendix 13). Neither Mr Webb nor the public was afforded the right to view and comment on the revised plans as the statutory consultation period had expired on 19th January 2001. The applicant was allowed to change the design of his house and garage constituting material amendments. Section 16 of the Council’s Development Control Charter (Appendix 26) states, “If material amendments are made to the application additional consultations will be carried out.” The gable of the garage denoted on the original plans was no longer the rear elevation to Mr Webb’s boundary but the roof of the garage now formed the rear elevation instead. The original gable elevation was maintenance free as there was no woodwork or guttering to maintain from this specific elevation. In his letter of material objection dated 14th March 2002 (Appendix 9), Mr Webb clearly stated his reasons of objection. He points out that the garage is now closer to his boundary than that depicted on the approved plans. This distance is now 40 centimetres instead of 100 centimetres. Due to the new elevation design and close proximity, the guttering, woodwork and roof etc., can only be accessed from Mr Webb’s property, something that Mr Webb strongly opposes. If required, the neighbour can now obtain a court order ordering Mr Webb to allow his neighbour access to his property to maintain their garage. This could have been avoided, if the original design of the garage in December 2000 had been adhered to. The approved garage plan is in Drawing Number RD.1158.05 (Appendix 13). This plan was subject to a further 4 revised plans and it is believed that Drawing Number RD.1158.05D is the adopted plan for the garage.
1.11 There is no suggestion in the approved plans of ground level comparisons with the house and garage and the surrounding land. The applicant was allowed to dig below the land level of Mr Webb’s land to accommodate his garage. In doing so, due also to the close proximity of the garage to Mr Webb’s boundary, the ground began to slip, which resulted in Mr Webb’s fence posts toppling and the death of several young hawthorn plants on his property. The design of the garage roof also facilitates the overshoot of rainwater off the roof and onto Mr Webb’s land, creating further erosion of his land.
1.12 Despite Mr Webb’s objections, which were material considerations in this application, Mr Webb was over-ridden by the LPA and planning permission was granted forthwith by a delegated decision made by “W”. This is in breach of the Council’s Constitution under Article 13 – Delegated Powers to the Head of Development and Environmental Protection. “G”, as Head of Development and Environmental Protection, confers the power, along with other named officers within his department, to exercise all the planning and associated functions of Planning Committee together with the additional delegated powers and reservations. He and his delegated officers can determine (approval or refusal) minor amendments submitted following previous grants of planning permission where it accords but when a material planning objection has been submitted in writing, as Mr Webb did, then he and his delegated officers powers of delegation have been silenced. Therefore, this particular amendment should have been presented to the Planning Committee for their deliberation and determination. In consideration of this particular application for amendment, there is no evidence within the Planning Register to suggest that Mr Webb’s objections have been taken into account when determination was made.
1.13 With reference to the ODPM document “Delivering Delegation” (Appendix 14), decisions made, whether by committee or by officers under delegated powers must be consistent and in accordance with relevant sections of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Where there is a fine balance to be struck between competing interests or a contentious case, local people would expect to see representation of their views and discussion at committee and the delegation system needs to be adequately sensitive to this and be adequately flexible to adapt to circumstances. Delegated decisions should be explained to all concerned, letters to consultees to explain reasons for any decisions against their views. Applicants and objectors should be encouraged to meet case officers to express their views. This assists in transparency and helps to meet Article 6 of the declaration of Human Rights.
1.14 In a formal investigation on 17th January 2003 (Appendix 15), both “G” and “W” admit within that investigation that this particular application should have been presented to the Planning Committee as he and his delegated officers were unable to resolve the objections and did not introduce any planning conditions to alleviate the problems Mr Webb had raised. Again, as per Council’s Constitution, “W” and “G” have brought the Council into disrepute in this matter. The Officer’s Code of Conduct states that they must act in a manner which is not contrary to the Council’s legitimate interest, in particular to report or record any matter in respect of which there is a duty to report or record, where they had an obligation to present the planning application for amendment to the Planning Committee. They therefore denied Mr Webb his right to a fair hearing under the Human Rights Act 1998 to publicly address the Planning Committee. This alone constitutes Gross Misconduct in the fact that they had negligently or willfully failed to comply with the legal requirements of the Council, the Human Rights Act 1998 as the delegated decision made is now one of certainty and Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended – the legal basis of delegation.
1.15 Having inspected the planning file for Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL), Mr Webb found no decision notices, reports or background papers pertaining to the March 2002 amendment other than plans stamped with approval. During the formal investigation, a question was put forward to “W” by the investigating officer as to her personal contribution of the amendment in March 2002. “W” denies any involvement in the determination of this amended application (Appendix 15).
1.16 On 25th September 2003, Mr Webb had written to “R”, Director of Environmental Services (Appendix 16) in order to ascertain the name or names of the Planning Officer(s) who dealt with the delegated decision of the amendment. On 30th October 2003, some 30 days later, Mr Webb received a response from “G” (Appendix 17), who avoided the issue of the requested information and simply supplied Mr Webb with a copy of “S”‘s letter dated 5th April 2002 (Section 1.5). Mr Webb responded to “G”‘s letter on 5th November 2003 (Appendix 18) and again asked him for the information he requested in his letter to the “R” dated 25th September 2003. Since Mr Webb did not receive a response to his letter dated 5th November 2003, he again sent a further letter to “G” dated 3rd December 2003 (Appendix 19) and requested the same information under the Data Protection Act 1998, as the Data Subject. In his reply dated 15th December 2003, again “G” refused to send the information requested by Mr Webb. Mr Webb sent a further letter to “G” on 19th December 2003 (Appendix 20) and again requested the same information and other information pertaining to previous delegated decisions of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL). A reply was then received from “P” (Development Control Manager) on 6th January 2004 (Appendix 21). “P” enclosed a copy of the Site Visit report created by “S” to which Mr Webb had already a copy. He continued to state that there were no other formal reports “on file but rather a series of letters agreeing to modifications eg revisions in the windows dated 10 July 2001 and amendments to brickwork dated 11 June 2001.” He had also enclosed a site notice of the original application made in December 2000 and also stated “No further site notices were displayed relative to the amendments subsequently received which were considered to be of minor nature.”
1.17 Mr Webb then addressed “P”‘s letter in his letter dated 8 January 2004 to “G” (Appendix 22). Mr Webb made it quite clear that he thought it was another ploy by “G” to deflect the issues raised from him and an attempt to resist his requests of the officer’s name who dealt with the March 2002 amendment. Mr Webb goes to some depth in this letter explaining his interpretation of the events etc., surrounding Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL).
1.18 On 7th February 2004, a further letter was sent to “R” in a final attempt to gather the information requested by Mr Webb (Appendix 23). Mr Webb made it quite clear to “R” that the information he required was public information and as such, must be retained by officers of the Council for the possible eventuality being required for Judicial Review, Ombudsman or other proceedings or investigation, as required by the Council’s Constitution. Mr Webb also explained to “R” that under Regulation 23 of The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000, it is an offence to obstruct any person exercising a right conferred under these Regulations to inspect, or to make a copy of the whole or part of the document or for any person to refuse to supply a copy of the whole or part of the document in accordance with Regulation 22. “R” never replied to Mr Webb’s letter.
1.19 Having sent several complaints on other matters to the Chief Executive, the Chief Executive suggested that these complaints and information requested should be collated together and then acted upon. “I” (Compliance Manager) was given that task and met with Mr Webb on the 17th February 2004, firstly, in order to gather the required information requested by Mr Webb. “I” explained that the information required would be available by 20th February 2004. Unfortunately, this date passed so Mr Webb contacted “I” by email on the 27th February 2004 (Appendix 24) and asked her to confirm whether or not the Council was going to provide the information requested. “I” responded the very same day and stated that she had left another message for “G” to contact her with regards to the information earlier that day. “I” continued, stating that she still had not received the information during that particular week despite several reminders and she had even personally offered to visit “G” at his office to collect it and was still awaiting confirmation of the whereabouts of the information. “I” also indicated in her email that the LPA felt they had provided all the information to which Mr Webb was entitled too. Mr Webb responded by confirming his beliefs that “G” and his department were been willfully obstructive in these matters and would complain to the Chief Executive on what had just transpired. “I” then further indicated in another email that she would also speak with the Chief Executive, in relation to the complaint, on what had just happened with regards to “G”.
1.20 On 9th March 2004, “I” delivered to Mr Webb, various documents she obtained from the LPA. One document in the form of a report is titled “Amended Plans Prior To Decision”
(Appendix 25) dated 5th March 2002. “S” created this document with regards to the amendment of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) (Sections 1.9, 1.10 & 1.11). Also, at the foot of the document is remark made by “W” in her own handwriting that states, “S + W discussed proposed amendments. They are fine. 18/3/02”
1.21 Having due regard to Section 1.13 of this document, during the informal investigation held in January 2002, “W” denied having made any contribution to the amendment of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL). However, it is evident that “W” did indeed make a contribution as to the outcome of the amendment, as shown in Section 1.17. Therefore, “W” had lied to the investigating officer as to her dealings in this particular planning matter and as of a consequence, the result from her dishonesty led to the investigating officer believing she had not abused her powers that ultimately victimized Mr Webb in the perverted outcome of this particular part of the investigation.
1.22 It is also quite evident that “G” and “P” abused their powers by conspiring with “W” (with reference Section 1.7) to hide the fact that she was involved in the determination of the amendment. Despite Mr Webb’s repeated requests to “G” and his adamant refusal of information, further indicated his collusion in this matter. Article 3 – Citizens and the Council of the Council’s Constitution states that members of the public have the right see reports, background papers and any records of decisions made by North East Lincolnshire Council and the Cabinet.
1.23 Even requests under the Data Protection Act 1998 had been considered by “G” to be irrelevant to the point where he considered himself to be above the law in his attempt to fail Mr Webb’s requests. Under Sections 7 (1) (2) of The Data Protection Act 1998, Mr Webb was entitled to this information. It is an offence under Section 13 not to comply with the requirements of Section 7. Section 36 of the Council’s Development Control Charter
(Appendix 26) states, “All information submitted as part of a planning application including plans, Environmental Statements, Traffic Impact Assessments, consultants’ reports, and consultation responses will normally be available for inspection by the public. In accordance with published charges, copies requested will be provided within 5 working days with payment in advance.” This is quite clearly a requirement that has no meaning or relevance to any of these Officer’s.
1.24 It is the view of the Local Government Ombudsman, that reports should be produced detailing the material considerations, views, objections and reasoning behind delegated decisions and that these should be available for Councillors and the public. The Government has extended the provisions on information to be included on the Planning Register (so that authorities have put their reasons for granting permission on the Planning Register). This applies to both committee and officer decisions. Article 13 of the Council’s Constitution also states that any delegated decision making will be made in accordance with a presumption in favour of openness, clarity of aims and desired outcomes, an explanation of the options considered before a decision was reached and the reasons why decisions were made are given. Procedure guidelines should make it quite clear that the exercise of delegated power should be by an officer other than the Case Officer. In some cases, final authorization requires a signature of a second officer prior to decisions being made. These procedures ensure that no suspicion of impropriety can arise.
1.25 The information required by Mr Webb should have been freely available to members of the public. The document in this case should have been held as a background paper in the Planning Register. Section 8 of the Council’s Constitution states that the proper officer (namely “W” as it is now assumed she was the Case Officer in this amendment) will set out in every report a list of those documents (called background papers) relating to the subject matter of the report which in his/her opinion disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of that report is based and which have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report.
1.26 It would now appear that there are no other additional background papers pertaining to this amendment other than the document recovered by “I”, which must be held on the Planning Register (Article 22 of the (GDPO) 1995), as amended). Despite been a contentious planning matter, as stated by “G” in Section 1.12, he and “W” have deliberately failed to properly document their recording of this decision. In this fact alone, maladministration had being caused, as this particular application for amendment had not being adequately recorded, as no formal written report other than that of the site visit report by “S” had been prepared. This can be also said of the other delegated decisions made by the LPA (Section 1.9) and in “P”‘s letter (Appendix 21), which are not documented within the Planning Register but have simply been approved by “rubber-stamping” amended plans. It is unclear throughout the entire planning history of Planning Application (DC/1007/00/WOL) who the Case Officer’s were and who the Delegating Officer’s were, due to the deliberate lack of proper reporting in the Planning Register. As discussed in Section 1.24, the Delegating Officer should not be the Case Officer. It is Mr Webb’s contention that “W” acted as both Case Officer and Delegating Officer in these planning matters.
1.27 It is evident that “W”, “G”, “P” and “R” in this particular matter, have not afforded Mr Webb the fairness and consistency in the treatment as an individual and were unjustified in their refusal of a lawful and reasonable instruction. They have not assisted in the effective operation of the Council and inappropriately used Council resources in what can only be described as a personal vendetta against Mr Webb. They were also negligent in carrying out duties in accordance with relevant policies and procedures and displayed personal conducts of unacceptable standards.
1.28 As per North East Lincolnshire Council’s Constitution, “W”, “G”, “P” and “R” have brought the Council into disrepute, in this matter. The Officer’s Code of Conduct states that they must act in a manner which is not contrary to the Council’s legitimate interest, in particular to report or record any matter in respect of which there is a duty to report or record, to accurately maintain those reports or documents, to act in a proper and orderly manner which would not result in an action against the Council for negligence and always act within the law on the Council’s premises. These issues alone constitute Gross Misconduct in the fact that they had negligently or willfully failed to comply with the legal requirements of the Council and legislation contained in The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, The Data Protection Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.
Sections 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8
“G” and “W”’s disregard of breach of planning control, contrary to Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Not investigated.
Sections 1.10 and 1.11
“W”’s breach of Article 6 and the Council’s Development Control Charter, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Not investigated.
“W”’s disregard of the Council’s Scheme of Delegated Powers, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. “The Head of Development and Environmental Protection or anyone exercising those delegated powers with his authority can of course decline to exercise such delegated power and refer an item to the Planning Committee. It may have been best to do so in this instance having informed Mr Webb that this would be the case.” “I consider this aspect of the complaint ought to be looked at against the Council’s’ delegated powers in force as at March 2002 by the Council’s’ Solicitor before a formal response is given.”
Sections 1.15 and 1.21
“W”’s factual inaccuracies to a formal Council investigation in 2003, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. “It seems from material on the file that “W” was involved in the minor amendment” No action.
“G” and “P”’s factual inaccuracies regarding the lack of further background documents, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Not investigated.
“P”, “G” and “W”’s willful obstruction of Mr Webb and the Council’s Compliance Officer to acquire background documents, contrary to Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 3 and Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. “Mr Webb appears to have been denied background information relating to this part of the complaint for a long period until Ms Sharpe (Council’s Compliance Officer) was able to acquire it for him.” No action.
“G”’s breach of Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and “R”’s total disregard of the Council’s Development Control Charter, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Not investigated.
Sections 1.24, 1.25 and 1.26
“W”’s breach of Article 20 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, contrary to Article 13 and Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Not investigated.
Investigating Officer’s Conclusion “Mr Webb’s claim he was not dealt with reasonably, due to the change from Committee decision to delegated decision, and that the Council did not deliver services in line with promised timescales. I do not consider, from the information I have been given, that dealing with the matter under delegated powers was incorrect (subject to the suggested check by the Council’s Solicitor), but was poor customer care. Subject to the check above I do not consider this part of the complaint should be upheld.” No action.
“G” and “W”’s disregard of breach of planning control, contrary to Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Refused to investigate.
“W”’s breach of Article 6 and the Council’s Development Control Charter, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Refused to investigate.
“W”’s disregard of the Council’s Scheme of Delegated Powers, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Refused to investigate.
“W”’s factual inaccuracies to a formal Council investigation in 2003, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Refused to investigate.
“G” and “P”’s factual inaccuracies regarding the lack of further background documents, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Refused to investigate.
“P”, “G” and “W”’s willful obstruction of Mr Webb and the Council’s Compliance Officer to acquire background documents, contrary to Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 3 and Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Refused to investigate.
“G”’s breach of Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and “R”’s total disregard of the Council’s Development Control Charter, contrary to Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Refused to investigate.
“W”’s breach of Article 20 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, contrary to Article 13 and Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Refused to investigate.
Local Government Ombudsman’s Conclusion “I have to say that the evidence I have seen satisfies that, even if the Council was at fault as you have suggested, you have not suffered any significant injustice as a result which would warrant further investigation. I also consider that it would have been more appropriate to seek remedy from your neighbour if you considered that he had caused the damage to your property.” No action.