Memorandum by Dr Anita Jennings (LGO 07)
I have taken an interest in the LGO Service
since l987 when my (late) husband and I filed a complaint against
East Devon District Council's handling of an application to demolish
the town's premier hotel and replace it with 30 flats.
The verdict was no maladministration but some
procedural shortcomings. I have perused every Annual Report from
the LGO for some l5 years (l988 to 2003), noting the regular trend
for the budget to rise, accompanied by a decline in the proportion
of complaints resulting in a verdict of maladministration with
or without injustice.
Since l987 I have also gained information about
l5 or l6 other complaints in East Devon. Of these, one led to
the departure of three councillors; one in the award of £37,500
to the complainants, (maladministration plus injustice); and two
entailed much smaller awards to the complainants (maladministration
plus injustice). All these were reported in the press resulting
from a Press Release issued by the LGO. Practically all the rest
of the complaints were dropped at diverse stages by the investigating
officer(s). Some entailed "local settlement"—a
device instituted well after l987 and resulting in far less public
awareness of the rising numbers of complaints lodged by the public.
"Local settlement" is biased in favour of the District
Councils by concealing, from the public, the real number of justified
complaints.
I am also concerned about the need for a verdict
of injustice before a complaint about maladministration is fully
investigated. Who decides whether the complaint involves injustice?
The decision rests entirely with the LGO, and it cannot be challenged
except by means of a costly judicial review. The weight given
to injustice means, in practice, that amenity societies, whose
officers are knowledgeable about planning regulations, are precluded
from lodging complaints unless they live next-door to a controversial
development site.. This may result in an immediate neighbour to
such a development being "encouraged" to sign the LGO's
forms, perhaps with some technical help from organisations (including
national ones like the CPRE). The catch is that when the LGO's
investigator interviews the complainant, he/she may be incapable
of answering searching questions about the procedures involved
in processing the "offending" application. This may
provide the investigator with a good excuse for prematurely closing
his inquiries—which, incidentally, often turn out to be
exceedingly slow.
The "procedural shortcomings" that
have come to light in the local complaints include a "thick
felt pen line" leading to a block of flats being built 10
ft to the South of the approved plan; to the Chairman of the Planning
Inspection Committee declaring an interest and leaving the chamber—but
subsequently writing to the Planning Inspectorate to support the
appellant; massive felling of trees of amenity value within the
Conservation Area; failure of the LPA to inform complainants about
a Planning Inspection debate at which they would have been entitled
to speak.
To summarize—Firstly, I would like to
see the abolition of secrecy surrounding "Local Settlements",
with every verdict of maladministration being given full publicity
via press releases. Secondly, I would like the LGO to investigate
every complaint about maladministration, whether or not it involves
injustice as judged solely by the LGO. Thirdly, enquiries need
speeding up—at present they may take l-3 years to complete.
| 
