{"id":2130,"date":"2010-12-03T17:46:23","date_gmt":"2010-12-03T17:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=2130"},"modified":"2010-12-03T17:46:23","modified_gmt":"2010-12-03T17:46:23","slug":"ombudsman-criticises-council-in-ca-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=2130","title":{"rendered":"Ombudsman criticises council in CA case"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n
\n<\/strong>The Local Government Ombudsman has upheld a complaint against Christchurch Borough Council over the way it handled amendments to a planning application for a housing development – but also welcomed subsequent action by the local planning authority to mitigate the effect of overlooking.
\n<\/span>
\nThe case involved a complaint by a mother and son over a planning application for a residential scheme on land next to their home located in a conservation area.<\/p>\n

The Local Government Ombudsman reports as follows:
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There were flaws in Christchurch Borough Council\u2019s handling of amendments to a planning application for a housing development.<\/p>\n

There were flaws in Christchurch Borough Council\u2019s handling of amendments to a planning application for a housing development, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Jane Martin. In her report, issued today (2 December 2010) she says: \u201cI welcome the Council\u2019s co-operation\u2026 I have decided to complete my investigation of these complaints and issue this report because I consider there are issues of public interest arising from my investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Mrs Evans\u2019 and her son, \u2018Mr Harris\u2019 (not their real names for legal reasons) complained about the Council\u2019s handling of proposed amendments to a planning application for a housing development adjacent to Mrs Evans\u2019 home, which is in a conservation area. Mr Harris is a trustee of the property.<\/p>\n

The Council treated the proposed amendments as minor and did not notify Mrs Evans or her son about them, thereby denying them the opportunity to comment. The Council kept no proper record of its consideration of the proposed amendments and how it reached the conclusion that they should be treated as minor. This lack of evidence undermined the complainants\u2019 confidence as to whether the amendments were properly considered and caused them justifiable outrage.<\/p>\n

However, the Ombudsman said: \u201cIt would have been a more transparent process if the complainants had been notified of the proposed changes and this may well have given them greater confidence in the decision making process and the Council\u2019s decision to approve the changes\u2026 Ultimately, it was a matter for [a council officer]\u2019s professional judgement as to whether the proposed amendments were minor and therefore required no notification and, although it seems to me that this was a marginal decision, it was not utterly unreasonable. Although some of the amendments will increase overlooking towards the complainants\u2019 property, other amendments will reduce it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Council failed to notice the omission of obscure-glazed screens to the balconies on the final set of approved drawings. This led to uncertainty as the Council only had the developer’s agreement to install the screens to rely on.<\/p>\n

The Ombudsman finds maladministration and, to remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to pay \u00a3500 each to Mrs Evans and Mr Harris. In addition, it has introduced improvements to its record-keeping procedures, and has secured the installation of obscure-glazed screens at the end of the first and second floor terraces of the new development.
\n
\n<\/strong>Report ref 08 019 936 and 1 other.
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n


\nLocal Government Ombudsman News: LINK<\/a>
\n<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Search Planning Portal: LINK<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Local Government Ombudsman has upheld a complaint against Christchurch Borough Council over the way it handled amendments to a planning application for a housing development – but also welcomed subsequent action by the local planning authority to mitigate the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2130","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2130","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2130"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2130\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2131,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2130\/revisions\/2131"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2130"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2130"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}