Letter to the LGO from Portsmouth City Council dated 13th July 2010
| Dear Mr Miles Complaint by Mr K Edmunds Thank you for your letter dated 11 June 2010 regarding the complaint by Mr Edmunds regarding his complaint that the council: a) failed to implement a decision and instruction of the Planning Committee 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; b) gave misleading information on the extent of the action taken to implement the decision and instruction of the Planning Committee 2010; c) failed to make available in the public gallery at the Planning Committee meeting on 3 march 2020 the green supplementary sheet; d)failed to make available on the Council's web site or to members of the public prior to the Planning Committee meeting on 3 march 2010 and Annex on Light Loss calculations referred to in the Brief for the site as presented to the committee; e) failed to explain why the designated planning case officer for the first two deferred committee meetings about the development was replaced by another case officer for the Planning Committee meeting on 3 March 2010; f) failed to explain why the replacement case officer stated to the Planning Committee meeting on 3 March 2010 that light calculations had been carried out on a first floor window of the complainant's house, when a document he received from the planning department on 26 February 2010, that he was told was the Annex to the Brief and had been cleared by a senior officer, showed that it was not; g) based the consideration of the matter by the Planning Committee on 3 March 2010 on an incorrect and misleading statement by a senior officer that a decision on a previous complaint to the Ombudsman had related to 2 West Street when the complaint had been about development at 10 West Street; and h) gave inadequate consideration to the complainant's formal complaint about the above matters, failed to respond to the questions put and delayed unjustifiably in considering the complaint, I will address each issue in turn. 1. A chronology of events leading up to the submission of the complaint. The chronology is attached as appendix 1 and supporting documentation as appendix 2a and 2b, 2. Describe the action taken by the Council to investigate alleged breaches of planning control at 2 West Street, Portsmouth and to implement a decision and instruction of the Planning Committee on 13 January 2010 to pursue a prosecution for non-compliance with an enforcement notice served. A chronology of the actions taken by the council and supporting documentation is attached as confidential appendix 3. A meeting was held between Legal and Planning Services to discuss the fresh evidence produced by Mr Edmunds at the planning committee meeting on 3 March 2010. Legal Services made the decision that any prosecution should await the arrival of a specialist planning lawyer, who joined Portsmouth City Council on 1 June 2010. The planning lawyer investigated the possible prosecution in respect of 2 West Street and prepared a report, with the recommendation that Portsmouth City Council does not prosecute. It is the responsibility of the City Solicitor to decide whether or not to pursue a prosecution. The City Solicitor has considered the report and has upheld the recommendation not to prosecute. 3. Comment on the complainant's record of the information available to the public prior to and at the Planning Committee meeting on 3 March 2010 about the development at 2 West Street. Copies of the Supplementary Matters reports were not placed in the public gallery, as there was concern that a great number of copies were being printed but not referred to by the public, and that this was a waste of resources. This decision was taken by the Chair of the Planning Committee in consultation with Democratic Services and the Assistant Head of Planning. It was agreed that this would be for a trial period starting in March 2010, however following Mr Edmunds complaint copies of the supplementary matters are now, once again, being made available in the public gallery. The committee report was available five working days before the committee. The presenting officer made reference to the contents of the report in his presentation, which confirmed that the window referred to for the light readings was the first floor window and not a ground floor window. Copies of the light readings had been supplied to both Mr Edmunds and Mr Halloran. 4. Say why the planning case officer for 2 West Street was replaced following the two committee meetings when consideration of the development was deferred. The original planning officer had a period of time off sick and therefore his caseload was reallocated. 5. Comment on the complainant's record that misleading information was given to the Planning Committee on 3 March 2010 about light assessments and a decision on a previous complaint to the ombudsman. Mr Edmunds places a great deal of weight on the light assessments he asked the original case officer to carry out. Light assessments are not a tool that is used frequently by planning officers. Copies of one set of the readings were circulated at the Planning Committee meeting; however members did not debate them. Mr Edmunds claimed at the January Planning Committee meeting that the window they were referenced from did not exist. During the site visit the day before the March Planning Committee meeting it became apparent that the case officer had wrongly referred to the first floor window as a ground floor window. The presenting officer confirmed and clarified this error to the Members at the Planning Committee meeting. The Assistant Head of Planning Services made reference to an earlier ombudsman case relating to 10 West Street. Mr Edmunds stated at the meeting that the case related to 10 West Street not 2 West Street as had been suggested by the officer, who genuinely believed that was the case. This was corrected at the meeting on the 3 March 2010 and therefore should not have been misleading. Notwithstanding this the paragraph of the ombudsman's letter that was referred to related to the weight that should be given to sunlight and daylight readings. Further the letter referred to the sunlight and daylight report that concluded that all the windows of the affected property were already close to or below the recommended minimum daylight levels. Later correspondence with Mr Edmunds has also confirmed that the ombudsman's letter did relate to 10 West Street. Mr Edmunds has made reference to the fact that the adjoining property was not shown on the plans. The property was shown but the actual number 15 was missing from the plans; the property number identified the other properties on the plans. 6. Say what steps were taken to consider the complainant's formal complaint of 7 March 2010 and related correspondence. The email of the 7 March 2010 was passed to the City Solicitor and the Assistant Head of Planning who were in the process of compiling a response to the letter from Mr Edmunds dated 21 February 2010 and an email dated 3 March 2010. On the 26 April 2010 Mr Edmunds sent an email with an additional issue, which was responded to on the 29 April 2010. Mr Edmunds sent a further email at 10.41am and this was responded to at 6.19pm on the same day. The letter sent to Mr Edmunds dated 12 May 2010 covered all the issues raised in his letter dated 21 February 2010 and the subsequent emails. I apologise for the delay in responding to Mr Edmunds, however it was important to ensure that the information provided was clear and precise, and that Portsmouth City Council was satisfied that al! of the points raised by Mr Edmunds had been answered. I enclose copies of correspondence at appendix 4 and confidential appendix 4a. Conclusion I apologise that Mr Edmunds remains unhappy with the Portsmouth City Council planning officers and the decision of the Planning Committee, however I am satisfied that the actions of Portsmouth City Council officers and councillors are in accordance with our policies and procedures. Yours sincerely David Williams Chief Executive Enc. |
[Back to the top]