Letter to the LGO from the complainant dated 17th June 2010
| Dear Mr Miles, Complaint against Portsmouth City Council Thank you for your letter at reference, before I comment on it, you need to be aware of some background information, which is entirely relevant; I will then comment on and amend your letter. 2 West Street was originally granted planning permission in 2000 for a two storey house with a pitched roof. At the time we complained and objected to loss of light. The council did not carry out any loss of light calculations, which we requested, and granted planning permission. I subsequently obtained a document from the Council, which I still possess, confirming that no loss of light calculations had been carried out. Before the property was built the Developer came back with an additional planning application to put an additional floor on the building with a flat roof. We again objected this time, as well as to loss of light, to overlooking, and also that the flat roof would be used as a roof terrace, further exacerbating overlooking. We were assured that loss of light was not a problem and were given written assurance that the flat roof would not be allowed to be used as a roof terrace. In our then ignorance, we believed the Council, and withdrew our objections, but insisting that these assurances were written into the planning brief to planning committee, which was done. I hold both a copy of this planning brief and a letter from the Council to me, assuring me that the flat roof would not be allowed to be used as a roof terrace. Once the building was completed, the new owner put in a planning application to use the flat roof as a roof terrace. At the same time the City Planning Officer ( John Slater) declared an interest in the new owner as they had known each other, when they both lived in Petersfield. We of course objected using the Council's written assurances, that it would not allow this to happen. We were amazed when they recommended granting planning permission, subsequently granted, with the proviso that an obscure glass screen be erected to diminish overlooking. The Council in doing this had broken a written promise not only to us but to a previous planning committee that granted acceptance of the flat roof. The current Chief Executive has refused to give us an answer to a written enquiry as to why this planning permission was granted. The roof terrace was built as was the glass screen. The owner of the property subsequently, illegally removed the screen without permission from the council. We wrote to the Council complaining about the situation, and they wrote to him, telling him to replace it. He then appealed against their enforcement ruling to the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate rejected his appeal in February 2008 and for more than two years the Council did not enforce the judgement from the Planning Inspectorate, nor did they continue with their own enforcement. The obscure glass screen was not replaced. The Council under questioning at planning committee stated that they had not enforced the replacement of the screen because the owner was bankrupt. This was not true. Subsequently a new planning application was submitted by, what was subsequently shown to be an imaginary new owner ( a Professor Woodiwiss from South Korea) to build an extension on the roof terrace. We of course objected again for loss of light and overlooking and the fact that enforcement had not taken place of the obscure glass screen. I personally wrote to the Chief Executive PCC, three times, stating that we did not want a certain planning officer to be involved in the application and to ask him to ensure that full light loss calculations should be carried out on all affected windows. He did nothing about it and subsequently at the second planning committee, when cross examined by a Councillor Sparshatt, about which windows the Planning officer had done his loss of light calculations, he pointed to a window on my property, the furthest away, to an area on the ground floor of my house, where in fact no window exists. I have documentation from the Council to support this. The Planning Officer clearly had not done any light loss calculations, had lied to Planning Committee that he had, and was clearly exposed thus at planning committee. All these allegations are fully supportable by documentation that I obtained from the Council and very reputable witnesses showing that this non existent window had been used. When I put in another request to the City Planning officer about what exactly his relationship was with the previous owner, he replied that he did not have to provide this information. I then made further inquiries and discovered more evidence that the property had not been sold to a Professor Woodiwiss; that the original owner still owned the property and that he was not bankrupt. I wrote to the Chief Executive PCC and provided written evidence of such. You have the subsequent correspondence. Additional complaints need to be made: 1. That the Council broke its written promise to us and planning committee, that the flat roof of 2 West Street, would not be allowed to be used as a roof terrace. Further that they have failed to provide us with reasons for this, although we have requested it. That the further granting of planning permission for an extension exacerbates this breach of promise. 2. That the Council were negligent in not enforcing the replacement of the obscure glass screen for more that two years, even though the Planning Inspector's appeal refusal was strong and unequivocal. 3. That the Council was negligent in not ensuring the claims of the owner of the property was bankrupt when he was not, and even when produced with the evidence by me, both by letter and at planning committee, did not accept it. 4. That the Council was negligent in not checking the Bona Fide of a planning applicant, and granting planning permission to an applicant who did not exist. 5. That the Chief Executive PCC, negligently, on three occasions, ignored written requests from me that full light loss calculations be carried out on all affected windows by planning officers and that the results be provided to me at least seven days before any planning committee, so that I could have them checked out by a professional (as I had caught planning officers out on a number of previous occasions, lying to planning committee, about light loss calculations). 6. That the planning officer mislead planning committee in the planning brief for planning committee of 11 november 2010, stating that the proposed extension would be 1.1 metres high. Although this statement was true, it was only so because he was measuring it for the roof of the next door property, not the roof it was to be built on. The Chief Executive in his letter to me, that you hold, states that they are considering taking legal action against the applicant for making a false planning application. it is my contention that they will not, as all events show that they were complicit with the situation throughout. The truth came out, only because they are so incompetent. Now turning to your letter: a) Amend to 'failed to implement a decision by planning committee and instruction by Councillor Sparshatt to the Assistant City Planning Officer (Claire Upton-Brown) on 13 January 2010 to pursue a prosecution for non-compliance with an enforcement notice served in relation to breaches of planning control at 2 West Street, Portsmouth. The other paragraphs are reasonable and fully supportable with documentation. You know me well enough to know that I would not state this if I could not fully support it. I still have the original dated envelopes with the evidence inside. A final complaint needs to be made, namely and most importantly that: The Council having granted planning permission to an application with an outstanding enforcement order made by a bogus applicant and subsequently having been presented with evidence of both this and that his claims to be bankrupt were false, and that light readings presented to planning committee by a planning officer were false, and that statements made to planning committee by the Assistant City planning Officer were false; have taken no action to revoke this planning permission. In fact the extension is currently being built and despite complaints made by me and false assurances from the Chief Executive, construction started well before the expiry of judicial review time laps; perhaps a reason why the Chief Executive took more than two months to answer my complaint. In the interests of justice and to ensure that your findings are not overruled by your new Boss, as your findings over No 10 West Street were, by the prematurely retired Jerry White, without any official recognition for his services. I reserve the right to widely publish all correspondence between the Ombudsman Institution and myself on these matters. There is something seriously wrong with planning in this city, in fact there are websites about it, see: www.po12bg.com not my website by the way! I look forward to a swift and equitable outcome to these serious matters, as I am sure do you. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Keith Edmunds |
[Back to the top]