There were multiple failures by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council in the handling of an extension to a primary school next to a 17th century hall that is Grade 2* listed, finds Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report, issued today (22 May 2009) she says: “… these are failures of corporate governance that severely undermine the Council’s credibility when discharging its planning and heritage stewardship functions.”
The Council gave planning permission for an extension and alterations to a primary school next to a Grade 2* listed 17th century hall. Only 6% of listed buildings are Grade 1 or Grade 2*. The law required the Council to consult English Heritage and to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the Hall or its setting. National planning policy guidance says that new buildings must be carefully designed to respect the setting of any historic buildings that they would stand alongside.
No consideration was given to the setting of the Hall when the extension and alterations were designed. The planning application was dealt with by an inexperienced officer who did not consult English Heritage – or the professional conservation staff employed by the Council – and did not know that she should consider the impact on the Hall. English Heritage says that it would have objected to the planning application as adversely affecting the open, green setting of the Hall, and making the school building more prominent to the front and rear of the Hall.
After planning permission had been given and work had started, the Schools and Children’s Directorate asked for some changes to be approved. The changes included altering the cladding of a prominent feature wall from cedar cladding to bright blue render. Although the Council had no power at the time to amend the planning permission, the inexperienced officer agreed to the change without any publicity or public consultation or notifying English Heritage. Another change was to allow a new tarmac footpath along the boundary of the Hall. English Heritage and the residents of the Hall say they would have objected to these changes if they had been notified.
Later, the architect asked for further changes to the planning permission for a new section of footpath, a ramp and balustrades. A manager in the Planning Service refused but the builders had been instructed to go ahead before that decision had been made. It was unlawful to proceed without planning permission. Although the Planning Committee refused retrospective planning permission there was 10 months delay before the planning enforcement service became involved – the Ombudsman accepts that the Council delayed because of her involvement.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice to the residents of the Hall. She is pleased to record that on considering a draft of her report the Council has agreed to:
*change the colour of the feature wall and finish on the balustrades to ones recommended by English Heritage
*discuss with English Heritage, the School and the residents of the Hall the best way to deal with the boundary footpath and the need for significant screening;
*meet English Heritage’s costs for making the recommendations; pay £1,000 to the complainants for the delay in remedying their justified complaints and for their time, trouble and stress in pursuing their complaints;
*report its failure to conduct its business lawfully in its 2008/09 Annual Governance Statement;
*and make a number of particular administrative improvements.
Report reference: 07C14706 and 07C14724
http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2009/may/calderdale-criticised-
multiple-failures-school-extension/
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/
1115316685216.html
http://www.calderdale.gov.uk/council/news/pressreleases/detail.jsp?id=19394&ref=index
