Agenda item

(a)       That the findings set out in the Public Interest Report be accepted for the reasons set out in paragraph 3.03 to 3.06 of the report; and

(b)       That the recommendations contained at paragraphs 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the Public Interest Report be accepted, namely that the Council:

                      I.        Issues an apology to the complainant;

                    II.        Reviews whether the conditions attached to the retrospective permission have been complied with.  If it concludes that they have not, the Council should consider what action may be expedient to ensure such compliance;

                   III.        Instructs the District Valuer to assess the impact of the development on Ms N’s property within 3 months and within a month of receiving the District Valuer’s report, pays her an amount which equates to the difference in value of her property before and after the development; and

                  IV.        Confirms to the PSOW what action it has taken in response to the Public Interest Report.

In his capacity as Monitoring Officer, the Chief Officer (Governance) introduced the item and background to a Public Interest Report issued by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW) who had upheld a complaint by the next-door neighbour of a property whose annexe had been granted planning permission by the Council.  The findings of the Public Interest Report stated that the way the applications were dealt with amounted to maladministration leading to injustice to that complainant and made recommendations for remedying the maladministration.  The Chief Officer said that such reports were a rare occurrence for the Council and that it was the responsibility of Council to decide whether to accept or challenge the findings and recommendations of the PSOW.

Whilst officers respected the views of the PSOW, they had given the matter careful and objective consideration and disagreed with some of those findings.  They believed that the annexe was substantially in accordance with policy and that, although there was a minor departure, it was not significant enough to justify refusal of planning permission.  Therefore, they considered that, had the Council refused permission, then the applicant would very likely have been successful on appeal.  Furthermore, permitted development rights allowed for the construction of a visually similar, and larger, building in any event.  Having taken independent legal advice, officers believed that whilst the Council would have reasonable prospects of success if it were to legally challenge the findings, such a process would incur significant costs and resources for both the Council and PSOW, potentially causing damage to that working relationship and further delaying a resolution for the complainant.  On that basis, it was recommended that the Council accept the findings of the PSOW.

By contrast the Council had discretion whether to accept the PSOW’s recommendations on remedy and would need good grounds to depart from those recommendations.  However, given the officers’ beliefs on policy and permitted development rights, they felt strongly that there were indeed good grounds to recommend different remedies to those put forward by the PSOW.  If the findings were accepted then it would be reasonable to implement the first two recommendations to apologise to the complainant for the length of time taken to resolve - for which the Council and PSOW were both attributable - and to review whether the conditions attached to the retrospective permission were complied with.  Officers recommended that the third PSOW recommendation (that the complainant be paid an amount equating to the difference in the value of her property before and after the development, which would equate to £20,000) be rejected on the grounds set out in 3.10 of the report.  Officers recommended that the Council pay a sum of £5,000 to reflect the time, trouble and distress caused to the complainant.

In moving the officer recommendations, Councillor Chris Bithell agreed that this was the correct approach based on the reasons stated.  Also speaking in support was Councillor David Wisinger who seconded the proposal.

Councillor Patrick Heesom thanked officers for the report and said that the PSOW recommendations were appropriate and should be acknowledged.  As this was the second Public Interest Report issued to the Council by the PSOW, he suggested that this be explored further by the Planning Strategy Group.

The Chief Executive said that the Planning Strategy Group and Group Leaders had been consulted on the report and that any learning from the matter would be followed up.

Councillor Richard Jones referred to wording in paragraph 3.08 of the report and said that if the Council accepted that maladministration had occurred then it should pay the complainant £20,000 (deemed by the District Valuer to be the difference in the value of her property) as recommended by the PSOW.

Councillor Clive Carver spoke about the importance of heeding the recommendations of the PSOW and referred to a similar report issued by the PSOW in 2019.  As he was not a Member of the Planning Committee and therefore had not received the relevant training, Councillor Carver raised concerns that he may not be sufficiently informed to question officer advice on planning applications in his ward.  Councillor Carver said that he would be voting against the officer recommendations and asked that this be recorded.

Councillor Mike Peers questioned the suggested offer of £5,000 if the Council was accepting some liability and asked how this figure had arisen.  He raised questions on compliance with planning conditions, the sharing of documented legal advice and asked whether the grounds for different remedies had been raised with the PSOW prior to the report to Council.

In responding to the points raised, the Chief Executive and Chief Officer clarified that a previous case quoted had not set a precedent as there were different reasons for challenge.  In this case, the main reasons for not challenging the findings by way of Judicial Review were to avoid reputational damage to the Council and its relationship with the PSOW, together with the costs involved in doing so.  Officers had made clear the grounds for departing from the PSOW recommendations prior to the Public Interest Report being issued, and the suggested payment to the complainant to reflect distress and delay with the case - which was equally attributable to the PSOW - was relative to other compensation payments on record for similar reasons.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Council had liaised fully with the PSOW throughout the process.

In response to questions from Councillor Aaron Shotton on the next stages, the Chief Officer set out the options available to the PSOW in considering the Council’s decision on which there would be no recourse to Members of the Council.

Councillor Richard Jones proposed an amendment that the Council accepts the findings and all recommendations made by the PSOW in full (paragraphs 50-53 of the PSOW report).  This was seconded by Councillor Heesom.

On the advice of the Chief Officer, a vote was taken to clarify whether Members supported the officers’ recommendations or the PSOW recommendations in full (amendment put forward by Councillor Jones).  On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the findings set out in the Public Interest Report be accepted for the reasons set out in paragraph 3.03 to 3.06 of the report; and

(b)       That the recommendations contained at paragraphs 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the Public Interest Report be accepted, namely that the Council:

                      I.        Issues an apology to the complainant;

                    II.        Reviews whether the conditions attached to the retrospective permission have been complied with.  If it concludes that they have not, the Council should consider what action may be expedient to ensure such compliance;

                   III.        Instructs the District Valuer to assess the impact of the development on Ms N’s property within 3 months and within a month of receiving the District Valuer’s report, pays her an amount which equates to the difference in value of her property before and after the development; and

                  IV.        Confirms to the PSOW what action it has taken in response to the Public Interest Report.