Post by admin on Sept 23, 2006 13:45:13 GMT 1
Planning section rap could be costly
A GOVERNMENT watchdog has slammed Rossendale Council for failures within its planning department.
The Local Government Ombudsman has sent a letter to council chief executive Carolyn Wilkins that refers to a ‘worrying trend’ of complaints against the department and states ‘there are clearly issues to be addressed’.
The Free Press has also obtained a leaked copy of a draft document by the ombudsman which indicates an intention to find the council guilty of maladministration regarding a planning application by the Hurstwood Group.
The letter, published on the ombudsman’s website (www.lgo.org.uk), reveals that 35 complaints against the council were received during the last financial year.
Of these, nearly 66 per cent concerned planning matters, up from 32 per cent the previous year and nearly treble the national average of 23 per cent.
The council should respond to the ombudsman over planning-related complaints within 28 days, but the authority took an average of 58.4 days.
While recognising that the planning department had been ‘under severe pressure’ in terms of resources and staffing, the letter says: ‘I cannot accept that it would not have been possible for the council to reply to me sooner.
‘I look forward to an improvement in the performance of the planning department in the coming year and trust that this will be reflected in fewer complaints.’
The leaked draft report chiefly concerns an application dating back to 1997 to build 31 homes on land in Rawtenstall.
Council members were advised at the time to approve the application subject to what is known as a Section 106 agreement, under which developers have to provide some benefit for the community by way of cash, open space or playing facilities.
But the application was turned down in July this year under new planning guidelines – despite Hurstwood making efforts to finalise the 106 agreement since February 2004.
The draft report – drawn up following a complaint to the ombudsman by a Hurstwood planning consultant – argues that the council provided ‘misleading advice and information’.
It states that while the council said it would deal with the matter urgently and finalise the section 106 agreement in line with a proposal put forward by the complainant, this did not occur and the actual reasons for the delay were not conveyed in an open and timely manner, adding: ‘I consider this to be maladministration.’
The report’s provisional conclusion is that the council should pay compensation to the firm for any fees incurred by the complainant for pursuing the matter since February 2004.
It also states that should the recently resubmitted application be refused again, Hurstwood should be compensated for ‘reasonable abortive’ fees and costs incurred.
And it is recommended that the council pays the same level of compensation for fees and costs incurred by a second developer who also experienced delays in finalising the 106 agreement for an application to change a Stubbins mill into 25 apartments.
But the report rejects a compensation claim for lost business revenue and interest by Hurstwood on the grounds that the firm could have appealed to the Secretary of State on the matter.
Both Hurstwood and the council now have the chance to comment on the findings before a final report is drawn up.
Rossendale Council argued it was misleading to use information from a draft report and they would not issue a full statement until the final report was published.
A council spokesman added: ‘We are continuing to discuss the contents of the report with the ombudsman and everyone concerned should wait until the Ombudsman’s final report has been made public.’
Hurstwood declined to comment.
George Oliver
First published by the Rossendale Free Press
A GOVERNMENT watchdog has slammed Rossendale Council for failures within its planning department.
The Local Government Ombudsman has sent a letter to council chief executive Carolyn Wilkins that refers to a ‘worrying trend’ of complaints against the department and states ‘there are clearly issues to be addressed’.
The Free Press has also obtained a leaked copy of a draft document by the ombudsman which indicates an intention to find the council guilty of maladministration regarding a planning application by the Hurstwood Group.
The letter, published on the ombudsman’s website (www.lgo.org.uk), reveals that 35 complaints against the council were received during the last financial year.
Of these, nearly 66 per cent concerned planning matters, up from 32 per cent the previous year and nearly treble the national average of 23 per cent.
The council should respond to the ombudsman over planning-related complaints within 28 days, but the authority took an average of 58.4 days.
While recognising that the planning department had been ‘under severe pressure’ in terms of resources and staffing, the letter says: ‘I cannot accept that it would not have been possible for the council to reply to me sooner.
‘I look forward to an improvement in the performance of the planning department in the coming year and trust that this will be reflected in fewer complaints.’
The leaked draft report chiefly concerns an application dating back to 1997 to build 31 homes on land in Rawtenstall.
Council members were advised at the time to approve the application subject to what is known as a Section 106 agreement, under which developers have to provide some benefit for the community by way of cash, open space or playing facilities.
But the application was turned down in July this year under new planning guidelines – despite Hurstwood making efforts to finalise the 106 agreement since February 2004.
The draft report – drawn up following a complaint to the ombudsman by a Hurstwood planning consultant – argues that the council provided ‘misleading advice and information’.
It states that while the council said it would deal with the matter urgently and finalise the section 106 agreement in line with a proposal put forward by the complainant, this did not occur and the actual reasons for the delay were not conveyed in an open and timely manner, adding: ‘I consider this to be maladministration.’
The report’s provisional conclusion is that the council should pay compensation to the firm for any fees incurred by the complainant for pursuing the matter since February 2004.
It also states that should the recently resubmitted application be refused again, Hurstwood should be compensated for ‘reasonable abortive’ fees and costs incurred.
And it is recommended that the council pays the same level of compensation for fees and costs incurred by a second developer who also experienced delays in finalising the 106 agreement for an application to change a Stubbins mill into 25 apartments.
But the report rejects a compensation claim for lost business revenue and interest by Hurstwood on the grounds that the firm could have appealed to the Secretary of State on the matter.
Both Hurstwood and the council now have the chance to comment on the findings before a final report is drawn up.
Rossendale Council argued it was misleading to use information from a draft report and they would not issue a full statement until the final report was published.
A council spokesman added: ‘We are continuing to discuss the contents of the report with the ombudsman and everyone concerned should wait until the Ombudsman’s final report has been made public.’
Hurstwood declined to comment.
George Oliver
First published by the Rossendale Free Press