For each entry, #no is the relevant paragraph, or part of, from the Final Draft of the Ombudsman’s findings 15-Apr-15. The first part each entry is what the Inspector was told by me and the second is what she said in her findings. The summary is at the very end of the third page.
| We said | she said about the width. | ||
| #19 | 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 asked for a retrospective planning application. | |
| She said: | The Council found the planning permission was lawfully implemented. There is no fault in either the process or reasoning by which the Council reached this decision. | |
| #20 | That they were not laid in accordance with the authorised plans (1m too wide) was overlooked by the Council. | |
| She said: | In response to the draft of my decision Mr X says because the foundations are too wide the permission was not lawfully implemented. | |
| #21 | I told the Council: “I have measured the structure concerned and it is a meter wider than the date stamped plan provided. Therefore the footings placed in 2001 must have been set a meter wider as well.” Email to Cllr and Case Officer 16-Dec-13. The public meeting was held two and a half months later and after the Planning Manager had conceded that the shed was not only wider but taller than planned. Email to Planning Manager 4-Mar-14. |
|
| She said: | Mr X says he told residents this at a public meeting. The Council accepts these measurements were wrong. Not at first, there were denials from first the Principal Planning Officer, on (1) 20-Dec-13 and (2) 13-Jan-14, and then the Planning Manager on (3) 15-Jan-14 |
|
| #22 | see 21 “I have measured the structure concerned and it is a meter wider than the date stamped plan provided. Therefore the footings placed in 2001 must have been set a meter wider as well.” | |
| She said: | A more senior officer checked the measurements; he found the width at ground level was just less than one metre wider than the permission allowed. . . The Council decided this was a breach of planning control. – but did nothing about it | |
| #23 | nothing needed saying – the contradiction is entirely of her own making: #22 The Council decided the developer had not built the shed entirely in accordance with the approved plans and so had not met condition 2. The Council decided this was a breach of planning control. | |
| She said: | The Council considered the difference between the permitted width and the width of the built shed and decided not to enforce. It decided the degree of departure from the plans – less than one metre – was “non-material.” In response to our Petition the Council said the extra width was material. |
|
| #24 | That they were not laid in accordance with the authorised plans (1m too wide) was overlooked by the Council. This was backed up by her being told by me: “The current structure does not conform to any approved plans. How can the council justify allowing work to continue when condition 2 has not been discharged.” copy of email to Planning Manager sent to the LGO 6-Apr-15 | |
| She said: | I cannot fault the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. It is established in law that enforcement action merely to respond to criticism without clear evidence of harm is likely to be considered unreasonable. Such cases are unlikely to succeed and lead to an adverse costs award. | |
| #26 | see #21 : the structure was measured and the Council advised: “it is a meter wider than the date stamped plan provided. Therefore the footings placed in 2001 must have been set a meter wider as well. Email to Cllr and Case Officer 16-Dec-13. It appears that the Case Officer accepted the word of the applicant that he was complying with the original application and there was no requirement for a retrospective planning application. |
|
| She said: | When the Authority found the structure was wider than the approved plans, there were two possible decisions it could reach. It could have said the development was wholly unauthorised because it was in breach of the approved plans. In this case it could not enforce any of the conditions. Or it could have said the development was authorised but the structure as built was in breach of condition 2 of the permission. | |
| The width is not mentioned in the Summary and although it was in breach in its own right the extra width was excused by STC because they had already told the Petitioners that it had been built to approved plans when it hadn’t. . | ||