Agenda item

This report details the outcome of a Local Government Ombudsman complaint relating to a planning application granted in May 2012 for the change of use of a site in Kingsbury Road to tyre fitting, storage and car wash, which the Ombudsman has recommended are reported to the relevant scrutiny committee (in this case Resources & Public Realm) for review.

Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) introduced a report detailing the findings from a Local Government Ombudsman regarding a complaint in regarding the way in which the Council had dealt with a planning application in 2012 for the change on use of a site.  As a result of their investigation the Ombudsman had found fault in the way the Council had dealt with the matter involving the failure to include a condition which had been agreed within the original planning consent leading to a number of recommended actions to ensure that this was less likely to happen again in the future.  As part of this process the Ombudsman had recommended that the outcome and actions in response were reported to the relevant Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee was advised that the actions taken as a result of the Ombudsman findings in respect of the case had included a) an apology to the complainant for the disappointment and frustration caused by the fault and b) a review of the council’s practices and procedures which members were advised had been completed.  Details on the review of process and procedures along with the changes and improvements made as a result had been set out within the report which it was noted had been designed to minimise the risk of future error or oversight, such as through validation, consultation, and the issuance of decisions to establish further quality control measures.

In presenting the report to the Committee members noted that details of the action taken had also been circulated for review and comment in advance of the meeting.

Having thanked Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the e Local Government Ombudsman findings and action taken in response, with the following comments and issues discussed:

·            As an initial query, the Chair sought details regarding whether the failure to attach a condition to the original planning consent had been an isolated incident or indicative of a broader issue affecting other planning applications.  In order to monitor the position and impact of the changes agreed in process and procedures as a result the Chair (as a request arising from the review) recommended an 18-month update to report on the full integration of any changes and to determine if similar issues had reoccurred or if all possible measures had been taken. In response, Gerry Ansell (Director of Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) expressed confidence that the processes had been implemented and were being kept under review. Members were informed that the Planning and Development Service regularly reviewed performance with any complaints received used to assist in assessing quality control measures and updated workflow processes as detailed in Appendix 1 of the committee report. Officers were keen to act swiftly to identify issues and improve processes with members also assured would be supported through the implementation of a new software system to enhance quality control measures.

·            In relation to the specific case which had been subject to the complaint, Members observed that planning permission had been granted in 2012, but the complaint was made in 2023 and sought further details about the discussions that had taken place between the planning department and the complainant, and whether the complaint could have been submitted and resolved earlier, given the length of time taken for the complaint to reach this stage. In response, Gerry Ansell explained that the 2012 planning application pertained to an estate with a shared access road, where there were issues with businesses co-existing. It was confirmed that ongoing dialogue had occurred regarding issues on the estate and efforts to resolve them. Frequent discussions had taken place with the complainant, with some issues being resolved over time. This specific issue had arisen at a later stage but was the result of ongoing concerns about the shared use of the estate road with efforts made to resolve the issues which had been raised in the complaint. Following up, members questioned whether the complaint process could have been initiated earlier to which the response confirmed that a complaint could only be acted upon once received. Once submitted, the specific complaint had been addressed through the planning process and in accordance with the relevant timescales.

·            In response to further questioning, members were advised that the Ombudsman could have awarded compensation to the complainant if harm was found to have occurred.  In this case, however, the Ombudsman had not determined that any financial payment to the complainant was unnecessary and instead recommended that the actions outlined in the committee report be carried out.

As a result of the review, it was RESOLVED to note:

(1)       To note the findings of the Ombudsman; and

(2)       That all actions recommended by the Ombudsman had been carried out and there were no further specific recommendations requiring consideration or review.