| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It may help if I briefly set out the origins of the case. I shall then respond to a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, and make clear my understanding of the position.
I understand that, between about 1990 and 1993, Mr. Carslake's home, "Monkhams", Half Acres, Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire, was surrounded on three sides by housing development. Mr. Carslake exercised his rights to make representations about those developments. In respect of one, a bungalow immediately adjoining his home, he was given assurances by the local planning authority, East Hertfordshire district council, about its size.
When amended plans were subsequently put to the council, it did not reconsult Mr. Carslake, and when construction of the bungalow started, he was concerned to see that it was closer to his home than he had been promised and that, although part of the roof visible from his garden was lower, it was longer than he expected and had a chimney on the end gable. Mr. Carslake was also concerned about the redevelopment of a house a little further off from his home, which he felt was higher and larger than its predecessor.
Having looked into this matter, it appears to me that the nub of the issue lies not in the enforcement of planning conditions, but in the errors that the council made in consulting and reconsulting Mr. Carslake, and in the failure of attempts since then to resolve the matter.
I think it will help the House if at this point I outline the obligations on local planning authorities to notify neighbours of planning applications. Local planning authorities are required to publicise all planning applications so that people likely to be affected by a proposed development can express their views before decisions are taken.
As a minimum, authorities have to notify neighbours directly or place a notice on or near the site. For major applications--for example, the erection of 10 or more dwellings--local planning authorities are additionally required to advertise the proposal in a local newspaper. Generally, neighbour notification will be appropriate where the development is likely to be of interest to close neighbours only. Site notices can be particularly effective where there is doubt about who might have an interest. It is, of course, open to authorities both to notify neighbours and to post a site notice if they consider it appropriate and cost effective to do so.
These measures represent the statutory minimum requirements. Circular 15/92, "Publicity for Planning Applications", advises local planning authorities to consider what other methods of publicity are available for attracting a wider audience. There is no statutory obligation on local planning authorities to publicise changes to applications once they are accepted as valid,
or to publicise applications required by a condition on a previous application, or for the approval of reserved matters. It is for the authority to decide whether further publicity is desirable in the light of the circumstances of the particular case.
In this instance, the local planning authority quite properly wrote to Mr. Carslake to inform him of the first planning application, and entered into correspondence with him about it, but unfortunately treated the subsequent amended plans as minor alterations to the proposal, and did not reconsult him.
Mr. Carslake has also expressed concern about the council withholding information from the public domain. Under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the public have a general right of access to meetings of local authorities and their committees. That includes access to related documents. Such documents normally include minutes of meetings and reports presented to public meetings of the council, including background papers. There are exceptions in the case of certain sensitive material specified in the Act and, for example, authorities must never disclose information the disclosure of which is prohibited by a court of law.
Returning to Mr. Carslake's position, it is difficult to comment on a situation that has extended over several years and has clearly caused him considerable distress. The case has also greatly occupied the local authority. I think that it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to offer detailed views on who is right and who is wrong.
The situation now is that the local government ombudsman has investigated the matter, and published a report in February 1997. His findings were as follows. The ombudsman clearly found in Mr. Carslake's favour in respect of the injustice that he suffered as a result of the council's failure to consult him properly about the bungalow built next to his home. He found that there had been maladministration in the council's handling of the replacement dwelling house built a little to the south of Mr. Carslake's home, but that he had not suffered injustice. He found also no maladministration regarding two other matters of development control.
The ombudsman recommended a clear remedy: that the council should commission a valuation of any diminution in the value of Mr. Carslake's home as a result of the impact of the bungalow; and that compensation should be paid to him on that basis, in addition to a payment of £250 for his time and trouble in bringing the complaint.
It is a matter of regret that the ombudsman's recommendations have not been implemented, but I understand that that is due to the continuing disagreements between Mr. Carslake and the council. However, I also understand that in recent weeks the valuation has been recommissioned. Whether that valuation will resolve the matter within a reasonable time is entirely in the hands of Mr. Carslake and the council.
I note with concern that Mr. Carslake wants the independent valuation of his home to be undertaken on a basis that differs from that recommended by the ombudsman. He wants it to take account not only of the bungalow but of the replacement house to the south of his property. The ombudsman found very clearly that Mr. Carslake had suffered no injustice by the council's errors with regard to that house. However, Mr. Carslake
has raised questions about the ombudsman's report, so I shall turn now to the role and status of the local government ombudsman.
The ombudsman was established by Parliament to consider complaints by individuals of alleged maladministration by a local authority causing injustice. An important aspect of the legislation governing the activities of the ombudsman is that it was designed to help those individuals who suffer injustice as a result of maladministration where there is no other method for them to seek a remedy.
As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford will be aware, the ombudsman is entirely independent of both central and local government. Decisions on whether to investigate complaints are, therefore, entirely at the discretion of the ombudsman, as is the manner in which complaints are investigated. Parliament decided that that independence was crucial to ensure that complainants could rely on a fair and impartial service. The House will understand that Ministers are therefore unable to intervene in the ombudsman's handling of his casework.
I understand that there has been considerable correspondence between Mr. Carslake and the ombudsman since investigations into Mr. Carslake's complaint were concluded and the ombudsman's report was issued in February of last year. Mr. Carslake disagrees with aspects of the ombudsman's conclusions, which has resulted in delays in assessing the diminution in value of Mr. Carslake's home. The ombudsman's reports into complaints are final, although his actions may be the subject of judicial review. The ombudsman also has an internal complaints system for dealing with complaints about the way in which he has behaved, or the way in which a complaint has been handled. However, if Mr. Carslake wants to make a new complaint about the planning issue, the ombudsman has said that he would be prepared to consider it.
I have considered carefully whether there is any action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions can take in the matter. I have to advise the House that there is no action that he could take. As I made clear a few moments ago, he cannot intervene in the deliberations of the ombudsman. My right hon. Friend's powers are entirely, and quite rightly, limited to those powers accorded to him by planning legislation. However, in that respect also, there is no action he can take.
All the planning decisions at issue were taken several years ago and have been implemented. The dispute does not appear to be about the enforcement of planning conditions; no one appears to have any remaining right of appeal to the Secretary of State; and there is no scheme outstanding over which he could exercise his exceptional power of call-in. It would not be appropriate for him to exercise his exceptional power to direct the revocation of any planning permissions, not only because substantial compensation would be payable to the owners of the buildings but because they could also lose their homes, which would be a harsh and absolutely unjustified consequence. In any case, the Secretary of State is extremely reluctant to intervene in matters of solely local significance, which this case is.
In my view, the way forward for all parties is perfectly clear. If Mr. Carslake has further grounds for complaint against the council, he should put them as soon as possible to the ombudsman, who will then consider whether there is a case to answer. If Mr. Carslake has complaints against the ombudsman himself, he should follow the course I outlined a few moments ago. Otherwise, I would urge
him--I am sure that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford will convey the message--to allow the independent valuation to go ahead on the basis recommended by the ombudsman.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |