LGO Findings paras 19-23

Senior Planner to Ombudsman:
Paragraph 20. In response to the draft of my decision Mr X says because the foundations are too wide the permission was not lawfully implemented.
Mr X to Ombudsman:
That they were not laid in accordance with the authorised plans (1m too wide) was overlooked by the Council. This could have been looked at if the Council had ask(ed) for retrospective planning application.
This was picked up by  Ombudsman in paragraph 25 of her findings: Mr X says the Council should have made the developer submit new plans or take the shed down. The Council cannot make a developer submit new plans. It can request a new planning application as part of enforcement; it is then for the developer to decide if he wants to do this.

Lost in several pages of what now appears to be a regurgitation of all the misinformation given to her, in paragraph 25, she expresses the  point Mr X was trying to make when he first complained in writing that the shed was bigger than permitted.

Corporate Lead to Mr Dawson, 1st August 2016:
There is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman,
Mr Dawson to Corporate Lead, 2nd September 2016:
You did not provide Anne-Marie with any new plans – ergo my assessment is correct and the LGO Inspector is wrong in her final assessment and therefore she has been misinformed by the Council. – How ‘deliberate’ it was, I cannot say, because I am not a legal expert.
Corporate Lead to Mr Dawson, 5th October 2016:
I can again advise that there is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman.
At the end her letter she writes:
If you have concerns that I have provided incorrect information in this letter and you wish to request a review of my decision, you should contact Mike Harding, Head of Legal Services, by writing to him at the Town Hall.

I did not bother,  guessing correctly that he would not respond and even in late 2019 the Monitoring Officer gives a vague statement: I understand that all complaints procedures regarding this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally.

The fact still remains that the enclosure on the UK Docks is nearly a meter wider, 3 meters tallerand 5 meters longer than planned and planning control have done nothing about it for over six years relying on the Executive to mislead the Ombudsman. Until planning control act they cannot say the matter has been exhausted.

The Council were also told that UK Docks were going to make it longer (by nearly 6 meters) before the extra frame was in place but planning control did nothing about that either. Again the matter has not been exhausted.

This entry was posted in LGO, Misinformation/Misrepresentation. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.