Introduction
Patney village is an area desinated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Wiltshire and is subject to more stringent planning controls than other areas. With no regard to planning consent new neighbours erect a large climbing frame in a paddock (subject to a condition specificly imposed to prevent intrusive building work for all but essentail reasons) at the bottom of residents gardens overlooking their properties. Members of Patney Parish Council recommend that retrospective planning permission be granted without even having the plans in front of them. Kennet District Council takes no notice of valid comments made to them during the consultation phase and grants permission on the basis of incorrect information. Its successor, the new Wiltshire Unitary Authority, covers up its predecessor's mistakes. The Local Government Ombudsman tried to shut the complaint down at the first opportunity but eventually rules in favour of the council anyway without considering the evidence.
Background
Planning
reference K/58638/VAR . Retrospective
planning application to vary condition 2 of K/53588/F to allow
retention of a childrens climbing frame in the paddock of 22A,
Jasmine
House, Woodland Road, Patney, Wiltshire.
A
large climbing frame (more suited to a
childrens recreation ground than a back garden) was erected
without planning permission in Feb 2008 on a paddock at the back of
my property designated as within an area of outstanding natural
beauty (AONB) and subject to stringent planning controls. I queried
this with the then Kennet District Council and they advised the
owners to apply for retrospective planning permission which they did.
The
paddock is subject to a condition restricting development because of
a public right of way which runs diagonally across the land. This
footpath was illegally diverted around the edge of the paddock.
Permitted development rights removal was imposed on the paddock when
change of use was granted from agricultural to garden use by the
previous owners. This was to stop all
but essential
development on the paddock due to the AONB designation and the
proximity of the public footpath.
Incredibly
and despite valid objections from neighbours, retrospective planning
permission was granted subject to just painting the structure green.
Actions undertaken by myself
June 2008
On
learning of the approval I read the planners report. It was very
brief and contained little information as to why the structure had
been allowed. I therefore wrote to the planner
who did the assessment ( Mr Peter Horton at KDC) asking for more
detailed reasons and explanations as the structure is clearly out of
place right at the back of my property. I got a dismissive and
arrogant written response with no useful information to explain his
decision to approve the application.
Photo right:
Taken from the same level as my upstairs bedroom. Overlooks the entire
garden and into my bedroom window. Was raw unpainted wood which
was just as hideous to look at. Painted green to "better blend in with
the background" - as viewed from the wrong footpath! Junk in the
greenhouse has been removed and the back garden completely cleared up
now. Click on the picture for an enlarged view.
I
also contacted my local councillor Tony Molland to engage his help.
All he did was simply repeat the mantra I got from the KDC planning
dept - "no planning justification to refuse the application". Subsequent attempts to involve my local councillor were an utter
waste of time, he wasn't at all interested in helping out and
when he did eventually turn up late for a pre-arranged meeting to go
over some details he no doubt hoped I was out so he wouldn't have
to get involved. He gave me no information that I didn't already
have.
Patney Parish council
They get copies of all local planning applications affecting the village and failed to correctly review the application as they are required to do. They didn't even have the application in front of them when they discussed it, yet they saw fit to pass judgement on it! On querying this with the PPC chairman, Mr Nigel Partridge, I got nothing but obfuscation and dismissive ness. I asked my local Councillor, Tony Molland to contact them with a view to going over the correct procedure regarding planning applications submitted to them for comment. He never bothered following this up.
June 2008
I
therefore commissioned an independent planning consultant (Robert
Gillespie from Impact Planning Services) to investigate the planning
application and carry out another assessment based on the criteria
that the council should have used in determining the planning
application. His report was very detailed, illuminating and
contained a number of details that the council completely omitted to
take into account. Briefly he found:
-
1) The council had entirely missed the illegally diverted footpath running around the border of the paddock.
Photo left: A map showing the route of the path the planners missed and the
diversions and blockages. Had either planner known about the blocked route they should have reported it to the highways dept to reinstate the correct footpath
route. X marks the spot where they actually did their assessment. Click on the picture for an enlarged view.
-
2) The council carried out their assessment from the wrong footpath ¼ mile away to the south ( this is despite the planning application having the box ticked to indicate a right of way crossed the paddock!). This explained why the planner only requested the structure to be painted green to better "blend in" with the background - which it does when viewed from the wrong footpath! Painting it green would make absolutely no difference when viewed from the paddock footpath.
-
3)The countryside and landscape officer also did his assessment from the wrong footpath!
in their report. As can be seen the frame is barely visible which co-incides with the planners comments in their report. There is no doubt they did their assessment from this (wrong) footpath. Click on the picture for an enlarged view.
4) No referral to the previous change of use application ( from agricultural land to garden usage) to ascertain the reasons for imposing the permitted development rights removal on the paddock in the first place. Had they done this they would have realised the footpath running across the paddock was the correct one to do the assessment from.
-
5) The footpath crossing the paddock is regarded as part of the public domain and the structure is an eyesore when viewed from it.
-
6) The report highlighted other planning policies and guidelines that the council should have consulted. These were ignored by KDC planning dept.
-
7) The planner should have reported the illegally diverted footpath to the highways dept. He didn't because he failed to realise it was there.
My
consultants report goes into the specific details and will not be
reproduced here.
Planning
solicitors were engaged to check the legal and procedural aspects of
Peter Horton's assessment and 2 avenues of approach were identified
- Judicial Review (hugely expensive) or a complaint to the
LGO.
October 2008
Following
the councils standard complaints procedure a complaint letter
together with my consultants report was sent to the KDC planning
dept. The planning manager at the time (Mr Ted Howles) looked into
it and wrote back completely dismissing my consultants report and any
suggestion that they had made any mistakes or oversights. It
was at this point that KDC realised they had completely missed the
footpath running diagonally across the paddock and had assessed from
the wrong footpath ¼ mile away to the south! In their reply KDC
planners attempted to obfuscate and cloud the issue trying to divert
attention away from their mistake in their response back to me and my
consultant.
October 2008
The
complaint was raised to the 2nd
level with KDC by submitting to the CEO, further reiterating the
issues raised in the report and rejecting the planning depts attempts
at a smokescreen. All he did was refer it straight back to the
planning dept again who just repeated their excuses to him! The
written response from KDC CEO was therefore equally dismissive of the
issues my consultant had raised.
December 2008
Raised a complaint with
the Local Government Ombudsman
Feb 2009
LGO
looks at my case documentation I had sent them and contact me by
phone. The LGO investigator (Mrs Margaret Watson) was less than
enthusiastic to undertake an investigation and attempted to shut the
complaint down after just the initial phone call. She refused to
contact my consultant and it was only when my consultant directly
contacted her shortly after my initial conversation, that the
complaint was then only very reluctantly accepted. The investigator
was provided with a very comprehensive file of information including a
copy of my consultants report and references to all the planning
objections, submissions and an analysis of the planners report.
Feb 2009
The
LGO investigator submits some very weak questions to Wiltshire's
planning dept (KDC now merged into the new unitary authority. Yet
another planner, Mr Mike Wilmott, responded with more obfuscation
but finally admitted that they did not refer back to the original
change of use to ascertain the reasons for imposing the condition on
the paddock. Amazingly, he also retrospectively produced a photo as
evidence to backup their assertion that they did do their assessment
from the paddock footpath. This is in
direct contradiction to the case officers report published on their
website where it states explicitly that they viewed the structure
from the southern footpath ¼ mile away.
Photo left: This was taken by
the council and produced retrospectively during
the
complaint to the LGO to "prove" they knew about the public right of way
crossing the
paddock. This is in fact nothing more than a documentary
photograph
taken for the planning file. The planning officer and countryside
officer
never refered to this photo or location in their report. Click on the picture for an enlarged view.
They were therefore lying and trying yet again to cover up their
mistakes. The photo was taken for nothing more than normal
documentary reasons. My consultant and I were asked to comment on the
councils response which we duly did pointing out their further
attempts at obfuscation and diverting attention away from the central
issues. Mrs Watson took no notice of our new submissions or simply
didn't understand the issues again.
March 2009
At
the beginning of March I contacted my MP, Michael Ancram for help and
support. This he was unable to do because the investigation was
ongoing and also because the LGO are not accountable directly to
parliamentary scrutiny. Disappointing is one word that could used
here. He asked to be kept informed and to contact him again once the
investigation had concluded.
Mrs
Watson contacts me again to inform me of
her findings and recommendation to the ombudsman who would write to
me in due course. She also informed me that she would be retiring at
the end of March but a decision should be with me by the end of April
and another investigator would be taking over the case. She flatly
refused to accept any more discussion or evidence about the issue,
her mind was made up and the case would go to the ombudsman with her
current findings which were to dismiss the complaint. Basically she
was only concerned with clearing her caseload before retirement and
didn't give a damn.
April 2009
No
response from the ombudsman regarding my complaint.
May 2009
Contacted
the LGO to enquire again as to what was happening. Received a letter
from the LGO at the end of May informing me that my case has been
dismissed as Ombudsman Jerry White believed the councils version of
events despite all the damning evidence we had uncovered.
Conduct of the complaints - KDC
KDC
complaints process was a sham exercise and not taken seriously.
Rather than accept and put right their mistakes when first
highlighted they seeked to cover them up and confuse and obfuscate
the issues. The 2nd
level complaint process was a complete waste of time as the CEO just
redirected the complaint back to the planning dept to comment on for
a 2nd
time! My local councillor Tony Molland just wasn't interested, he
merely went through the motions of being seen to be doing "something".
Conduct of the
complaints - The LGO
I
didn't really expect any meaningful response from KDC to right a
very obvious wrong so I raised my complaint with the LGO in the
mistaken belief that they were impartial and fair. The LGO website
documentation is detailed and gives the impression they actually care
and will do their utmost to rectify planning problems and mistakes. The
reality is totally different and if they were subject to the
trades description act would have been shut down years ago.
-
1) According to my consultant the LGO investigator (Mrs Watson) handling my case did NOT have a planning background
-
2) Mrs Watson did not readily understand or appreciate the issues until my consultant had restated them on at least 3 occasions ( and even then she still did not fully appreciate how important they were)
-
3) I requested numerous times that a site visit was required to fully appreciate what had gone wrong. This was refused and instead had to provide digital photos which could not show the whole context of the problem.
-
4) The investigator refused to contact my consultant to discuss the issues raised on the report and instead tried to discuss them with me despite repeatedly informing her that my consultant should be the one to talk to. When questioned why she hadn't spoken to my consultant she deemed it un-necessary as she "fully understood" the details!
-
5) My consultant always had to initiate contact with Mrs Watson to discuss issues she had obviously (deliberately and conveniently?) misdirected herself on.
-
6) Despite all the research, damning evidence and proof and even a written admission from the council that they did not refer back to the reasons for imposing the condition on the paddock, she still recommended that the case be dismissed.
-
7) The file of information I sent Mrs Watson had been largely ignored and only been given a cursory glance. I know this as I had to resend documentation that was already contained within it or had references to it!
-
8) Mrs Watson was retiring at the end of March and was simply clearing her desk to avoid leaving any loose ends for any other investigators to take on the workload. My case was therefore given cursory attention with a view to closing it as quickly as possible, she merely went thorough the motions with no serious intention of carrying out a proper investigation.
-
June 2009
Contacted
Michael Ancram again who came round for a personal visit where I
described the circumstances of my complaint. The only course of
action he could undertake was to see if any parliamentary
committees could look at the complaint as part of their "oversight" of
the ombudsman. A few weeks later the answer came back that they
could not look at individual cases. Mr Ancram asked to be kept
informed of the outcome of the LGO review that I would be requesting.
Asked
for a review to be undertaken as per the
LGO procedure. I was informed that this would be delayed due to
staff being on holiday. Mr Stephen Purser another LGO investigator
unconnected with my case would do the review. I specifically asked he
contact me and my consultant before carrying out the review. After
obtaining Mrs Watson's records of my case via an FOI request, I
created a new summary document (as Mrs Watsons ignored and left
out the salient points of my arguments!) for Stephen Purser to use in
conjunction with speaking to me and my consultant to ensure he
understood the issues involved. I pointed out that its no use
reviewing someone else's notes if they are incorrect or missing the
details, it just means you reach the same conclusion based on faulty
information. My request for a call was subsequently completely
ignored, I never heard anything from him, absolutely nothing!
September 2009
Just
as I was about to contact Mr Purser about the on-going delay my
documentation folder was returned to me in the post together with a
letter from Jerry White informing me that the review had been done
and the case was closed. The excuses contained in it were even more
outrageous than his previous letter. Stephen Purser never had the
common courtesy to even contact me, he just did whatever an
investigator does with LGO reviews and never even bothered to inform
me beforehand of his views before submitting them back to Jerry White
for a "decision".
So
after all the damning evidence we compiled, proof (including our own
photographic evidence to back it up) , time and effort spent on
researching and proving my case way beyond any doubt, the LGO just
dismiss it out of hand and accept the councils excuses and cover-ups.
Planning regulations can simply be ignored as and when its convenient
for my council and the LGO will simply condone the subsequent cover
up.
October 2009
Appendix 1 Letter to Mr Purser, LGO investigator, 13/10/2009
Appendix 2 Letter to Michael Ancram MP, 13/10/2009
Andy Sharp