| Contents | The Ombudsman | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 1: Planning Law History Current Legislation Interpretation Delegation Appeals 2: Local Plan
Policies 3: Residential Design
Guide 4: Grounds for
Objection 6: The Objection 9: The Ombudsman
|
The Local Government Ombudsman is the only body to whom a complaint by an objector regarding a Planning Authority can be addressed. The problem is that unlike an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate made by a dissatisfied applicant, a complaint to the Ombudsman cannot be in respect of the planning issues involved in the decision. A complaint can only be made if the complainant can prove that maladministration has occurred which resulted in a wrong or damaging decision. A description of the origins and functions of the ombudsman service can be found at: http://www.lgo.org.uk/origins.htm It should be borne in mind, however, that "There is no statutory definition of maladministration and little judicial authority on the subject. In piloting the 1967 Act through Parliament, Richard Crossman referred to "bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrariness and so on". The problem is that the Ombudsman's interpretation of maladministration and that of the objector will differ considerably. The LGO website gives the following: Causes of maladministration include:
Given the attitude of the Forest of Dean District council in favour of development, it is not too difficult to find some contravention of one or more of the above. The Ombudsman, however, has ways of dismissing such evidence. Here are a few examples: Irrational Argument I asked the Council to place a preservation order on a substantial Oak Tree bordering the development site (which the developer had conveniently ignored, proposing to build a house directly below the branches, about 1 metre from the trunk) and have it surveyed by a professional as recommended by the Arboricultural Institute. The council applied the preservation order but refused the survey on the grounds that it would be 'too onerous' for the developer. The planning officer described the tree as 'Nice' and at the committee meeting it was reported as a Yew and not an Oak. The Countryside Officer expressed the concern that the developers map did not show a healthy tree but no action was taken I consulted a Fellow of the Arboricultural institute who wrote
"In my experience it is unusual for the Planning
Department not to recommend an Arboricultural report together with a
tree protection scheme, for all trees likely to be affected by the
development of the land, from the developer", and went on to advise:
"Although the Tree Preservation Order is of great importance
in the long term interests of the tree, damage to the root system may
not become apparent for several years following completion of the
development by which time little can be done to reverse the decline or
acquire compensation from the Developer.
Publishing misleading information In it's publication 'Good Administrative Practice' the Ombudsman stresses: "Ensure that decisions are not taken which are inconsistent with established policies of the council or other relevant plans or guidelines unless there are adequate and relevant grounds for doing so." Yet, in response to my complaint that the Authority had ignored a requirement to limit the number of dwellings served by a cul-de-sac, placed on it by the Highway Authority, the Ombudsman responded that there was no maladministration as this was only a "guideline figure" Irrelevant argument Given that the Council had previously refused permission for one dwelling on the grounds that it would cause "a serious loss of privacy now enjoyed by adjoining residents" I argued that either the current or the previous decision must be flawed. The Ombudsman responded by arguing that the distance between my property and the development was such that privacy would not be affected. Given that the previous refusal was for only one dwelling, it must have been clear to even the most inexperienced person that distance between dwellings was not the cause of the loss of privacy. In fact it was because of the effect of vehicular access, movements and noise but when this was pointed out, the Ombudsman declined to comment further. Failing to verify statements made by the Council The Ombudsman quoted from a letter from the Planning Authority that it had received recommendations from the Highways Authority and implemented them. In fact, there is no letter on file from the Highways Authority but the Ombudsman could not be bothered to investigate further in order to find this out.
I have no evidence to support this view, but I am left with the distinct impression that each time I presented an argument that the Council's decision was flawed, the Ombudsman telephoned the Council and whatever they said was given as justification. At no time did I consider that the Ombudsman took anything I had to say seriously. This service is a waste of taxpayers money. The Planning Authority sets itself above giving a reasoned explanation of its actions and the Ombudsman supports this. The Ombudsman has now ended all communication indicating that the only way forward is to challenge his decision in the High Court. The above seems to suggest that the Ombudsman is answerable only to the High Court but in fact, the Ombudsman must answer to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). If you feel that you have reason to complain about the Ombudsman I would urge you to write (via your MP) to all members of the committee outlining your dissatisfaction. The committee website is at: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/odpm.cfm Click on 'Members' to see a list of the MPs that make up this committee. The committee cannot pursue individual cases but many MP's have no idea how biased and unaccountable the Ombudsmen are, so it is worth bringing it to their attention. Others have experienced bad service from the Ombudsman. For more information see:
|
