Provisional Statement of Reasons dated 21st February 2011
| Complaint
ref: 10 000 639 Council: Portsmouth City Council The complaint 1. Mr A complains that officers of the Council: a)
failed to implement a decision of the Planning Committee on 13
January 2010 and an instruction by a councillor, 'X' , to pursue a
prosecution for non-compliance with an enforcement notice served for
breaches of planning control and the non-retention of an obscure glazed
screen at the land referred to ('the site');
b) gave misleading information on the action taken to implement the decisions of the Planning Committee on 13 January 2010; c) failed to make available on the Council's web site or to the public prior to the committee meeting on 3 March 2010, an annex on light loss calculations referred to in the case report on a re-submitted planning application for a proposed roof extension and other works at the site; d) failed to make available additional information, 'the green supplementary sheet', in the public gallery at the committee meeting on 3 March 2010; e) failed to explain why the designated planning case officer for the first two committee meetings that considered the proposed development was replaced by another officer for the committee on 3 March 2010; f) failed to explain why it was stated to Members that light calculations related to a first floor window, when the annex to the case report, as cleared by a senior officer, showed that this was not the case; g) wrongly stated to Members on 3 March 2010 that a decision of the Ombudsman on a previous complaint by Mr A had concerned the site when that complaint had related to other land and with the result that they based their decision to grant planning permission on incorrect and misleading information; and h) gave inadequate consideration to his formal complaint about the lawfulness and acceptability Qf development at the site and alleged corruption, by failing to respond to questions put and unjustified delay. 2. In a further statement of complaint, Mr A says that the Council: broke a promise that a roof area at the site would not be used as a roof terrace; was negligent in not enforcing, for over two years, the reinstatement of the obscure glazed screen on the roof; was negligent in not checking the veracity of claims by the owner about his circumstances and the situation of the alleged new owner; the chief executive repeatedly disregarded requests by him for more extensive light tests of all windows considered to be affected by further proposed development at the site; and misleading information was given to Members about the height of the further development. 3. Mr A considers that the Council has misrepresented and sought to down play the impact of development on his privacy and the daylight and sunlight available to his home. The role of the Ombudsman and the relevant law 4. The Ombudsman's role is to consider complaints of service failure and maladministration causing injustice. The Ombudsman must consider whether the Council has acted reasonably in accordance with the law, its own policies and generally accepted standards of local administration. 5. We look at the administrative actions of the Council but we do not challenge decisions that have been made properly even though people may disagree with them. Nor can we challenge the professional judgement of the Council's officers. Where a council has acted with maladministration, the Ombudsman considers whether injustice has arisen, and any appropriate remedy for that injustice. Investigation 6. As part of the investigation, I have:
7. The site comprises a three storey mid-terrace residential building. Conditional planning permission to retain the property, as built, was given in 2002, subject to the provision and retention of a three panel obscure glazed screen on the north facing roof edge. Mr A's property is situated to the rear and north. A roof terrace and windows of his house look towards the site. 8. The relevant events are set out in annex 1 and take account of Mr A's submissions and the Council's record. The Council's written comments 9. The Council considers that it has taken account of Mr A's situation as an existing occupier, within the limits of its statutory planning powers and responsibilities. Its record is that it acted on the breach of planning control reported by Mr A in January 2007, when he said that the screen had been removed. It took steps to require the original and new owner to comply with the planning condition. The feature was reinstated in 2010. The Council's assessment is that Mr A did not suffer a significant loss of amenity or privacy when the screen was not in place. It also does not consider that he has lost sunlight or daylight to an unacceptable extent from the new roof extension at the site. The Council's comments at interview 10. The senior planning enforcement officer said he had investigated the report by Mr A in January 2007 of the removal of the obscure glazed screen. Following a site visit, he advised the owner that the retention of the screen was a requirement of the planning permission for the site. After initial investigation, papers had been passed to legal services and an enforcement notice served in June 2007. He did not consider this timescale unreasonable given the need to establish the facts and the owner's intentions. 11. Following the owner's unsuccessful appeal and the expiry of the compliance period in February 2008, he took advice from legal services about the owner's situation and claimed financial difficulty. That advice culminated in a decision by planning officers, communicated to legal services, that in view of what was known about the circumstances of the owner and the likely change in ownership of the site, enforcement action should be put on hold. 12. Subsequently, he wrote to the apparent new owner, referring to the outstanding enforcement notice and inviting him to confirm his intentions. The new owner said he intended to submit a planning application for an extension of the roof and other works. The prospect of the planning application became a relevant consideration in whether or not to pursue formal enforcement action. The screen was reinstated in May 2010. A visit in October 2010 confirmed that the permission for the roof extension had been implemented. The three panel screen was in the approved position. But, with the new roof extension immediately behind, it now served little practical purpose. 13. The senior planning officer said that he had recommended refusal of the first planning application by the new owner of the site, on design grounds. The proposed alterations to the front of the property were considered to have an unacceptable impact on the conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings. 14. At Mr A's request, he had carried out an initial light assessment in October 2009, taking account of spot heights from plans, direct observation and photos and the distance of Mr A's windows from the site. The exercise showed no significant impact on the daylight and sunlight available to Mr A's house. He had not considered it necessary to calculate the light available to windows of properties at a right angle. Ground floor rooms of these properties were already affected by a side wall and the angles were oblique. 15. After the withdrawal of the first application in November 2009 and the resubmission, he had carried out a fresh light assessment that showed that there would not be an unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to Mr A's property. The revised design of the scheme and the front elevations made it acceptable and he recommended approval. 16. At the January 2010 committee, Mr A had disputed the light assessments. Members asked for clarification of which window (s) had been assessed and agreed to a site visit. The officer had then been signed off on sick leave. At the visit, officers accepted that an error had been made in the estimation of spot heights and description of the light assessments. The information given to Members in January 2010 had been in good faith. But he had taken the spot height data for Mr A's property from aerial photos. In retrospect, that data had been wrong. He thought that he had measured the light to a ground floor window when in fact the calculajions applied to a first-floor window. 17. But the error had not affected the conclusion that there was not a significant adverse impact on the daylight and sunlight available to the property given the limits already imposed by the proximity of existing properties. The second light assessment had taken account of another adjoining property and a tall building to the south, as well as Mr A's house. The assessment had shown no significant impact on the daylight and sunlight available to adjoining properties, given the already close-knit nature of the area. 18. He had given limited weight to the light tests in coming to his view on the acceptability of the development. Such tests were not routinely undertaken. His conclusion was that the roof extension would not have a significant impact on Mr A's amenity in terms of loss of light to habitable rooms, privacy or sense of enclosure. 19. The assistant head of planning said the period between January and June 2007, before the service of the enforcement notice, could have been shorter but probably not less than 2/3 months. There had been no evidence of demonstrable harm and the person most likely affected had not complained. 20. After the dismissal of the owner's appeal in January 2008, planning officers had written to the owner in late February 2008 about non-compliance with the upheld enforcement notice and referred the matter to legal services in April 2008. The period before legal services wrote to the owner in September 2008 about possible proceedings could have been shorter. But there had not been a specialist planning lawyer in post. She considered that court action by the Council at this time would have been difficult to sustain. The immediate neighbour had not complained. It was understood that the site was on the market. It had been necessary to consider what harm was arising and if it was expedient and in the public interest to take formal action. 21. The Council was required to have regard to the likely sale of the site and the stated intention of the new owner to alter the roof and reinstate the privacy screen. She did not accept that there had been misleading or inaccurate information deliberately given by officers to Members or third parties. The claimed bankruptcy of the former owner had been mentioned by him in a telephone conversation with a legal officer. That information had been passed to planning in the normal manner. 22. As soon as contact details of the apparent new owner were obtained, planning officers wrote to him pointing out the outstanding enforcement notice. Officers had no reason to question the veracity of the statements by the new owner. 23. His first planning application had been recommended for refusal on design grounds. The case officer had not identified a loss of daylight/sunlight arising from the roof extension that gave grounds for withholding planning permission. The officer had acted in good faith in the information given to the committee. With hindsight, there had been a technical error in the estimation of the height of the windows of Mr A's property relative to the site. The report initially referred to the wrong window used for assessment purposes. In the event, this had not affected the integrity of the conclusion that there was not an unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight. The corrected information showed that there was not a worse situation resulting from that originally described. 24. There had been a genuine mistake. But there had not been any intent to submit misleading or inaccurate information to Members or to downplay the impact of the proposed roof extension on Mr A's property. The light assessments for the first and second planning applications had been in recognition of the objections put by Mr A about claimed loss of light. Such assessments were unusual, fraught with technical difficulty and subjective in their scope and findings, despite the methodology. They were one of a number of material planning considerations taken into account 25. In January 2010, Members deferred the second planning application for a site visit and resolved to pursue a prosecution for non-compliance with the enforcement notice. She did not recall a formal committee resolution in relation to comments by councillor X. In February 2010, she held a Members' briefing. The application had then been reconsidered and approved in March 2010. Officers had not failed to act on the resolution to pursue a prosecution. Legal services had wished to await the arrival in post of a specialist lawyer. The lawyer advised that such action could not be justified. 26. The head of planning said he had declared an interest in 2005/6 in his knowledge of the former owners. Prior to the change in ownership of the site in 2009, he had not been involved in matters related to the site because of the declared interest. Service issues had been overseen by the assistant head of planning. He became involved again in late 2009 after the ownership changed and the declared interest was no longer relevant. 27. In the period between the report by Mr A of a breach of planning control in January 2007 and the service of the enforcement notice in June 2007, the Council had to consider whether it was expedient to take action and the severity of harm arising, with formal action a last resort. The person most affected by the non retention of the privacy screen, the occupier of the nearest property, at a right angle, had not objected. The time that elapsed before the notice was served had not been wholly unreasonable. 28. Planning officers had acted on the non-compliance with the upheld enforcement notice. A warning letter had been sent in February 2008 on the expiry of the 28 day compliance period. Planning had informed legal services in April 2008 of the non-compliance. Five months elapsed before legal services sent a letter in September 2008 warning of formal proceedings. But officers had to work within the resources available and case priorities. The likelihood of the site changing hands and the stated intent of the new owner became material considerations. The resolution of the January 2010 committee to prosecute had not been disregarded. Planning had asked legal services to act as necessary. 29. Following Mr A's complaint about the light assessments, clearer and more accurate descriptions had been prepared of the height of the proposed development and how the impact on the availability of daylight and sunlight had been calculated. 30. As head of the planning service, he had taken very seriously the allegations put by Mr A against the service and individual staff. These had been properly considered by the monitoring officer and chief executive. The January 2010 committee had not made any formal resolution in respect of comments by councillor X. 31. The strategic director and city solicitor said that following the allegations by Mr A, he had met with the head of internal audit to consider what action should be taken. He had also spoken with the chair of the standards committee. It was considered that if Mr A had evidence of impropriety, he should contact the Police as he had referred to potential criminal matters. He was not aware that Mr A had done so. His understanding was that there had not been any contact by the Police with the Council about the allegations. 32. The issues raised by Mr A had been considered under internal audit arrangements and by the relevant heads of service. But officers were strongly of the opinion that any allegations of impropriety and potential criminality were matters for the Police. 33. The Council's enforcement timescale between January and June 2007 could have been quicker. There had not been a dedicated specialist lawyer in post. The legal services department had been under resourced - a situation now addressed. Equally, the case should have been progressed more effectively and quickly after the compliance period following the appeal decision. But officers had to balance priorities and available resources, having regard to the tests applying to formal enforcement action. 34. An extended period had elapsed after legal services wrote to the owner in September 2008 warning of possible legal action. But officers were required to have regard to the intended sale of the land and the ability of the then owner to take the necessary action to remedy the breach of planning control. A judgment was made that it was not appropriate to take formal action, pending the sale of the property. It was anticipated that the breach of planning control could be remedied through action by the new owner. 35. The understanding of planning and legal officers by late 2009 was that the sale of the site had taken place and the original owner made bankrupt. Published Land Registry details were often not amended until sometime after a sale had been completed. Officers had not given misleading or inaccurate information to Members or third parties about the circumstances in which enforcement action had been considered. 36. The committee resolution of January 2010 to pursue a prosecution had not been ignored. It had been appropriate to await the arrival in post of a planning lawyer who subsequently concluded that action was not justified. Councillor X's comments about a need to investigate Mr A's allegations had not been reflected in a formal resolution. Provisional view 37. My preliminary view is that I have not found evidence of administrative fault by the Council under its responsibilities for the control of development and planning enforcement that gives grounds for further investigation. I am also not persuaded that a significant, direct personal injustice has arisen to Mr A from the events referred to. The action taken to investigate breaches of planning control and pursue formal enforcement action. 38. Mr A is strongly critical of the steps taken by the Council to investigate breaches of planning control at the site and why formal enforcement action was not taken following the decision of the Planning Committee on 13 January 2010 to pursue a prosecution for non-compliance with the upheld enforcement notice. 39. I asked the Council's officers, at interview, to account for the authority's timescales and the action taken from when Mr A reported in 2007 the removal of the screen required by the planning condition. The relevant events here fall into distinct time periods: 40. January - June 2007: After Mr A reported in January 2007 that the screen had been removed, the Council contacted the owner and reminded him of the requirement for the retention of the screen. After he said that it had been removed following storm damage and the immediately adjacent occupier had asked if it could be not re-erected, the Council acted correctly by stating that the planning condition remained extant and by reiterating the need for compliance. 41. The Council served an enforcement notice in June 2007, some six months after the initial report of a breach of planning control. That timescale would have been frustrating for Mr A. But officers were required to establish the facts and consider what harm was arising and whether it was expedient and in the public interest to take formal enforcement action. National guidance specifies that such a step should be a last resort. The timescale could, perhaps, have been shorter. But it was necessary to investigate the alleged breach and decide what action was appropriate, in the circumstances found. I see no reason to the Ombudsman to question the action taken by the Council here. 42 June 2007 - January 2008. Following the owner's appeal against the enforcement notice, it fell to the Planning Inspectorate to decide whether the Council's action was justifiable and should be upheld. This period of time would also have been frustrating for Mr A as a third party interested in the outcome of the appeal. But the Council was not in a position to take further formal action until the Inspectorate had reached its decision after the owner exercised his statutory right to contest the enforcement action. 43. January- September 2008. Following the dismissal of the appeal in January 2008 and the upheld enforcement notice, the Council acted appropriately when it wrote to the owner in February 2008 stating that the 28 day period for compliance had expired and seeking confirmation of his intentions. The planning department correctly referred the matter to legal services in April 2008 when no further progress had been made in obtaining compliance with the extant enforcement notice. But some five months then elapsed before legal services wrote to the owner, warning him of the likelihood of proceedings. The Council's chronology is largely silent during this period. 44. The planning department chased legal services in June 2008. But there is no evidence otherwise that, during this period, the matter was given urgent or priority attention by planning officers in a client capacity. This situation was compounded by the continued absence of a specialist planning lawyer in post in legal services and mounting pressure on legal services staff from other legal work, particularly relation to children's services. 45. At interview, officers said that, on balance, more could and should have been done to move the case forward. But they stressed that in both service departments, there had been a need to prioritise the resources available to the Council, having regard to the seriousness of individual cases and what harm was arising. A conscious decision had not been taken to treat the case referred to as being a lesser priority. But it had been required to be considered on a day-to-day basis alongside other, arguably more serious, instances of breaches of planning control, such as damage to listed buildings, and the demands of other service areas on the authority's legal resources. 46. There was administrative fault by the Council during this period, in undue delay and a lack of incisiveness and attention to the case by the two service areas. 47. It must now be conjecture whether more timely action by the Council during 2008 would have resulted in a fundamentally different situation. Greater urgency would have given Mr A more confidence in the Council's intentions and approach. But I do not consider that the fault evident at this stage caused a significant, personal injustice to him through a serious loss of amenity given the looking over that already existed between nearby properties. And the owner and occupier of the property nearest the site had not put any formal complaint to the Council about the removal of the screen. 48. September/October 2008 to late 2009. 15 months elapsed after the Council decided to put enforcement action on hold in October 2008, following the owner's statement, in a telephone call to legal services, that he was in financial difficulty and considering selling the site. But likely practical difficulty in sustaining action against the owner that would have resulted in the reinstatement of the screen and the prospect of a new owner who might be better placed to remedy the outstanding breach of planning control were relevant considerations for the Council at this stage. 49.I do not consider it unreasonable that officers took at face value the information given by the owner in October 2008 about his situation or that they came to a conclusion that enforcement action against him, and at that time, would serve little purpose or practical value. They were required to have regard to the tests of whether it would have been expedient and in the public interest to take formal action and what harm was arising. 50. I have not seen evidence that officers based their decision to put the enforcement action on hold based on a flawed assessment of the owner's situation, given what they knew and could reasonably have known about his circumstances. They exercised their professional judgement in a careful manner, mindful of the extant enforcement notice and national guidance on enforcement action. Neither have I seen an indication that they provided misleading and inaccurate information to Mr A about their decision. 51. The Council had no reason to doubt the veracity of the information it subsequently received during 2009 that the owner had gone bankrupt and the site had been sold, to an individual with an overseas contact address. When e mail details for the new claimed owner were received, the Council wrote to him pointing out the outstanding breach of planning control and inviting him to confirm his intentions for the site. That action was in line with good practice and was followed by the first planning application, later withdrawn when recommended for refusal, for a roof extension and other works. And the onus rests with planning applicants to supply accurate and true information. 52. Events from late 2009'. The Council was required to have regard to the new owner's stated intention to carry out further development and reinstate the glazed screen specified in the planning condition and extant enforcement notice. 53. Following the withdrawal of the first application for the roof extension after it had been submitted to the November 2009 Planning Committee with a recommendation for refusal on grounds relating to the acceptability of the works to the front of the property, the Council was required to consider the re-submission that amended the front elevation. 54. A re-arranged meeting of the January 2010 Planning Committee, postponed due to bad weather, deferred the re-submitted application for a Members' site visit. The undetermined planning application would have been a material consideration for officers as to whether they would have felt it appropriate to pursue further formal action at that stage to secure compliance with the extant enforcement notice. 55. That the January Planning Committee resolved also to initiate a prosecution against the owner of the site for the continued breach of planning control was a matter for the judgement and discretion of the Members concerned. But Members went beyond their normal remit when they specified the precise nature of the enforcement action to be undertaken, a matter normally left to the city solicitor to determine in the circumstances of individual cases. That decision raised Mr A's expectations of the formal steps that the authority would take to secure the reinstatement of the screen when the new owner had already stated his intent to provide the screen as part of the further planned works to the roof and his re-submitted planning application was awaiting determination. 56. Following the Members' site visit on the re-submitted planning application, the application was reported back to the March meeting of the Planning Committee when Members granted planning permission for the roof extension and other intended works. 57. After the Planning Committee on 3 March 2010, legal services and planning officers considered the additional evidence produced by Mr A about the breach of planning control in the non-retention of the screen. Legal services officers were entitled to decide that further consideration of the matter needed to await the arrival in post of a specialist planning lawyer, who joined the Council on 1 June 2010. 58. Following an investigation, the planning lawyer recommended that the Council should not prosecute. The city solicitor acted within his delegated authority when he considered the lawyer's report and upheld the recommendation not to prosecute. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to question such judgments reached by officers on the facts available. 59. A site visit by the Council in May 2010 confirmed that the new owner had erected the glazed screen as required by the enforcement notice. The glass panels were temporarily removed pending construction of the approved roof extension. But an inspection by the Council in late 2010 found the screen still in place, with the panels re-fixed. 60. I have carefully considered Mr A's view that officers may have deliberately held back from taking further formal enforcement action, to his detriment, and with favour given to the original and new owners of the site. I have not found evidence to substantiate this claim. Rather, a series of professional judgments were made by officers over time about the scope for formal action and how compliance with planning requirements could be best achieved. 61. The enforcement case on the breach of control in the removal of the screen could have been better managed. A more timely and transparent process might have reassured Mr A about the action being taken following the appeal decision. But I do not consider that the Ombudsman should conclude that the Council's decisions and assessments were fundamentally flawed. Officers were required to have regard to the new owner's stated intentions and consider, on their merits, the planning applications that envisaged the reinstatement of the privacy screen as part of the further proposed development. 62. As to what injustice may have arisen to Mr A from these events, the glazed screen, while intended as a privacy feature, would never have completely prevented looking towards his property and roof terrace given its dimensions. Its main purpose was to limit the potential for undue overlooking of the immediately adjacent property, at a right angle to the roof. Views in that direction are oblique. It would always have been likely that users of the roof in its original form would have tended to mainly look southwards, away from Mr A's property. The screen now serves a limited purpose given the position and proximity of the new roof extension. 63. The properties in the immediate area are tightly knit with unusual building to building relationships and inevitable looking over adjoining properties. The screen was a requirement of the planning permission of 2002. But it would always have had a limited role in limiting views towards Mr A's property. I am not persuaded that he suffered a significant loss of amenity in the period before the screen was reinstated that gives a basis for further investigation of this aspect of the complaint. The information available to the public before and at the committee on 3 March 2010 64. The Council has confirmed that following a decision of the chair of the Planning Committee, in consultation with democratic services and the assistant head of planning, copies of supplementary matters reports had not been placed in the public gallery owing to concerns about wasteful printing of documents often not referred to by the public. Subsequent to Mr A's complaint, that decision was reviewed. Since March 2010, copies of the supplementary matters reports have been available in the public gallery. 65. The non-availability of the supplementary matters reports in the public gallery would have been a cause of concern for Mr A and other members of the public expecting to see such documents available for reference. But I have not seen evidence that the Council set out to withhold information, based on improper motivations. The aim here was to save money. The Council acted reasonably when it reviewed its decision and made available again in the public gallery copies of the documents. The report on the re-submitted planning application was available five working days before the meeting and the Council met statutory requirements in its availability. 66. If the annex on light loss calculations, referred to in the officers' report to the committee, had been available on the Council's website and to the public prior to the meeting, this would have lent greater transparency to the authority's decision-making. But I do not consider that the absence of this information in the public domain immediately prior to the meeting prejudiced the proper hearing of the application by Members or compromised to a material degree the ability of objectors to put their case. Members were aware and mindful of residents' concerns about the availability of daylight and sunlight and the adequacy of the light readings. Mr A's query on why the planning case officer was replaced 67. The Council has confirmed that the original case officer had a period of sick leave, when his workload was reallocated. Re-allocation of the case was an appropriate response when it became evident that the officer would be absent on sickness grounds for an extended interval. I see nothing here that the Ombudsman should seek to pursue. The information given to Members about light assessments and a previous complaint to the Ombudsman 68. I have not found evidence that misleading information was given to Members about light assessments and the availability of daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties such that should call into question the grant of planning permission for the re-submitted planning application for the roof extension and other works at the site. 69. The Council has confirmed that at the January meeting of the Planning Committee the case officer wrongly referred to a window of Mr A's property from which light measurements had been taken when the window cited had not, in fact, been used for the calculations. At the meeting, Mr A strongly disputed the readings and said the window referred to did not exist. During the Members' site visit prior to the March meeting, it was realized that the case officer had wrongly referred to the first floor window used for measurements as a ground floor window. This error was corrected by the presenting officer during his oral statement to Members at the Planning Committee in March. 70. The presenting officer confirmed that the window used for the light readings was the first floor window and not a ground floor window as had been stated incorrectly to Members in January. Copies of the readings were forwarded to Mr A and another party. Members had appropriate information before them, through the case report, the oral advice given by officers and their site visit to properly reach their decision to grant planning permission. 71. I have not seen an indication that the error in the description of the light measurements undertaken, made inadvertently and in good faith by the original case officer, had a material impact on the proper consideration of the re-submitted planning application. Such assessments are not routinely undertaken. Members were given details of the readings but did not debate the results. The light readings were a material planning consideration. But Members were required to weigh the light readings against the other material planning considerations relevant to the assessment of the acceptability of the development, as referred to in the case report and officers' oral advice. 72. The light assessments carried out were a guidance tool, but officers and Members were required to have regard to all the factors rele.vant to the development in reaching their decisions. I believe they did so in an appropriate manner. 73. Officers and Members reached reasonable assessments when they concluded that, having regard to the site and its setting and the concerns raised by objectors, the proposed roof extension would not impact adversely on the daylight, sunlight or privacy of existing occupiers, include Mr A's property, to a degree that gave grounds for withholding planning permission for the resubmitted application. I have not found evidence that the Council gave inadequate consideration to Mr A's amenity when it granted planning permission for the new roof extension or that the situation of his property, with the already close juxtaposition of existing properties, has been affected to a material, adverse degree by the approval and construction of the development. 74. The assistant head of planning services referred at one stage to the Ombudsman's decision on a previous complaint by Mr A. But that complaint related to a different site and not the land the subject of the planning application. A misunderstanding arose when the officer believed that the complaint had related to the application site. That error was corrected at the committee on 3 March 2010 and did not have any material adverse consequence when Members reached their decision to grant planning permission. The regard given to Mr A's formal complaint of 7 March 2010 and enquiries 75. The Council treated Mr A's formal complaint of 7 March 2010 with due seriousness. His e mail was forwarded to the city solicitor and the assistant head of planning who were preparing a response to his letter of 21 February 2010 and e-mail of 3 March 2010. On 26 April 2010, he e mailed the Council with an additional issue that it replied to on 29 April 2010. His further e-mail that day was responded to later the same day. 76. On 12 May 2010, the Council gave its substantive response that sought to address the issues raised in his letter of 21 February 2010 and subsequent e-mails. The Council apologised for the delay in replying and said it had sought to ensure that all the information provided was clear and precise, with the points he had raised addressed. 77. The Council's timescale in replying to the complaint of 7 March 2010 and earlier correspondence of 21 February 2010 became extended. But the time that elapsed was not unreasonable given the issues raised by Mr A, both at the outset and later, before the authority gave its substantive response. Officers have responded in a reasoned and careful manner to Mr A's enquiries. His concerns have been reviewed at a senior level and treated seriously and with due rigour. The consideration given to Mr A's claims of alleged corruption 78. Senior officers took appropriate administrative steps to consider Mr A's view that there may have been corruption in its decision making. The strategic director and city solicitor exercised his discretion and judgement when, following discussion with the head of internal audit, he decided that the claims concerned alleged criminal behaviour and when he advised Mr A to contact the Police. If Mr A considers that he has evidence of alleged improper intent or motivation or actual corrupt behaviour by officers, Members or private individuals, he should contact the Police. The Ombudsman is barred in law from considering potential criminal matters. Other matters raised by Mr A 79. The authority's decisions concerning the acceptability of the development of the site in 2002 are now significantly outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction because of the passage of time. I do not consider that it would now be reasonable or practicable for her to seek to look into the circumstances of the grant of planning permission to retain the property as built or what assurances may have been given about the use of the roof area. 80. Mr A continues to be concerned about the lawfulness of other works at the site. But these are matters that he should raise with the Council under its service arrangements. The Council has responded to his most recent enquires in this regard. Brian Miles Senior Investigator On behalf of the Local Government Ombudsman |