| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Eric Pickles be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mrs. Teresa Gorman be added to the Committee.--[Charlotte Atkins, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Ordered,
That Mr. David Atkinson be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Ian Taylor be added to the Committee.--[Charlotte Atkins, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Ordered,
That Mr. Nick Gibb be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. David Ruffley be added to the Committee.--[Charlotte Atkins, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Madam Speaker:
When I responded to a point of order today from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I was not aware that he was elected to this House 48 years ago today. I congratulate him. He and I have not always seen eye to eye, but it has been a privilege for me to serve in the House with him. I understand that his wife is not well, and I hope that he and his entire family flourish.
Planning (East Hertfordshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Pope.]
10.15 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford): This debate concerns the case of my constituent,Mr. S. Carslake, and his dispute with East Hertfordshire district council and the local government ombudsman over the way in which he has been treated in relation to developments affecting his home.
The essence of the issue is how we ensure that justice is done, and seen to be done, for ordinary people whose property is affected by development that reduces its amenity and value. As we advocate the use of brown land and the redevelopment of our towns and villages instead of building in the green belt, that issue will become more and more important. The case of Mr. Carslake's property in Bishop's Stortford is a prime example of what should not happen. It has left Mr. Carslake--a decent, hard-working citizen of this country who has bought his own home--with a burning and justifiable sense of injustice and outrage.
The case is as follows. It relates, first, to a number of failures in planning procedure and the lax enforcement of planning conditions involving new structures on three sides of Mr. Carslake's residence, the amenities of which have been substantially damaged. More importantly, it concerns the behaviour of several council officials, which has proved unacceptable by any reasonable standards. It is a complex and difficult case, and I have had to simplify it considerably to describe it in the time available and enable the Minister to give a proper reply.
The new structures that are being built around Mr. Carslake's home include, first, an overbearing structure on one side which is built closer to his home than the planning approval allowed for and runs the full length of his small rear garden. Planning permission is flouted by the roof being higher in one part of the building, and the original planning permission was amended to extend the building by 9 ft without any reference to Mr. Carslake.
Secondly, a huge house, which is 170 sq m larger than was advised to the planning committee, overlooks Mr. Carslake's entire rear garden. That problem is made worse by the raising of the land in the garden surrounding the house without planning permission. Planning permission for the house was accepted by the council as being damaging to Mr. Carslake. The council offered to recompense Mr. Carslake by building a wall that would cost at least £6,000, but has subsequently withdrawn the offer.
On the third side of Mr. Carslake's small rear garden, there is a building converted from a banana packing station into four dwellings with eight windows overlooking his property. The planning permission said that those windows should be non-opening, but they can be and are opened. The council failed to enforce its own planning permission and the building is in any case higher than permitted.
The second issue is the failure of the ombudsman to examine and report on the case in full once the council had admitted to maladministration on one, and only
one, aspect of the whole case. That is important not only because it shows up the limitation of the ombudsman and the need for reform of the system, but because, as I understand it, any compensation for Mr. Carslake will be restricted to damage that is caused to his property by the building of the first structure that I mentioned. There will be none for the over-large house for which the council initially offered compensation. If that is so, it will constitute a grave injustice to Mr. Carslake.
Mr. Carslake has instanced to me and his councillors a series of misdemeanours by the council's officials, which I shall summarise. He has suffered long delays in replies to his letters--months not weeks. Some of his letters remain to be answered seven years after they were sent. In order to avoid answering letters, the council has said that it has lost some delivered to it--since when, of course, Mr. Carslake has always corresponded by recorded delivery.
Information that he legitimately needed to know has been withheld from him by the holding of conversations in secret part II council meetings. He has been refused minutes from such meetings, even though, under the council's standing orders, it is obligatory that they should be made available to him. To this day, the council has yet to answer any objection that Mr. Carslake has lodged with it, especially with regard to the removal of a pear tree, which provided shelter for his home.
In September 1992, the director of planning of East Hertfordshire district council submitted a report to the planning committee on the big house which, in a report issued nine months later, was generally agreed to be misleading. Compensation to a maximum of £6,000 to heighten a wall--which Mr. Carslake pointed out could not be done without making it unstable, therefore uninsurable and certainly dangerous to children who played on either side of it--was awarded on the basis of the report and reported to the press. Of course, he refused to accept that amount as sensible compensation or, indeed, as a compromise. At a subsequent secret meeting of the planning committee, the offer of compensation was withdrawn. Council officials decided to do nothing more and were reluctant even to discuss the case with Mr. Carslake's legal representatives.
After considering the huge amount of evidence submitted by Mr. Carslake and the council, the ombudsman produced a draft report, which he sent to Mr. Carslake and the councillors who were advising him for their comments. The two councillors in Bishop's Stortford who have represented Mr. Carslake for seven years deserve the compliments of the House for the way in which they have pursued the case, supported their client through thick and thin and helped him to try to get justice from the council.
When the report was published, it reflected none of the comments of either Mr. Carslake or the two councillors. Frankly, it was outrageously biased in the council's favour. This Parliament established the post of ombudsman to try to safeguard the interests of individuals against the council and other bureaucratic procedures. In spite of detailed evidence to the contrary submitted by Mr. Carslake, the ombudsman's report accepted all the council's statements as factual.
Thirdly, statements made by the council in its own favour were included in the report as fact, although they were untrue and the ombudsman had been given detailed evidence that they were untrue. Fourthly, the ombudsman totally ignored almost all the written evidence provided by Mr. Carslake and the two councillors. Moreover, the report in its final form was never submitted to Mr. Carslake so that he could comment on it.
Fifthly, there was not a word regarding the main thrust of Mr. Carslake's complaints--that is, misconduct, wilful misconduct and cover-up, all of which incorporated extremely serious allegations. In addition, a number of other highly relevant issues involving false and/or misleading statements by senior council officials were unaddressed, and remain so to this day.
Sixthly, Mr. Carslake's legal advisers had been given no opportunity to see and comment on the revised draft before its submission to the ombudsman. I understand that, under the ombudsman's terms of reference, that opportunity was improperly denied to Mr. Carslake.
Seventhly, Mr. Carslake was awarded the derisory and insulting sum of £250 compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and inconvenience. An independent, highly respected local surveyor assessed the amenity damage caused to Mr. Carslake's property at £10,000. Legal expenses alone of more than £10,000 have been incurred, and Mr. Carslake and the councillors involved have spent a huge amount of personal time on the case.
Mr. Carslake's lawyers have commented that, from the ombudsman's actions, it is clear that the validity and strength of Mr. Carslake's case have been systematically undermined, and that conclusions drawn in the report represented a high and unacceptable level of injustice. Those are highly respected planning lawyers, from some of the leading firms in this country.
My request that the ombudsman meet Mr. Carslake with the objective of resolving the difficulties was bluntly refused. In effect, the ombudsman has assisted in the cover-up and has shielded senior council officials from the consequences of their improper actions.
In conclusion, faced with the stony-faced bureaucrats of the council and of the ombudsman, I have had no alternative but to bring this very serious matter to the attention of the House and the Minister. I ask him to investigate the case immediately, with a view to giving an individual taxpayer justice, or to make certain that East Hertfordshire district council sets up its own independent investigation. Mr. Carslake has offered £10,000 to assist in defraying the costs of such an investigation, provided that the money is returned to him if the independent report finds in his favour.
I also request a review of the way in which councils conduct planning procedures and enforce planning permission conditions, and I ask the Minister to issue guidelines, or to amend the law, to prevent such injustices occurring.
Lastly, I ask for an investigation of the ombudsman to ensure that his procedures are effective and objective, using this case as an illustration of where he has failed in the past.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |