§ 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 Carslake by building a wall that would cost at least £6,000, but has subsequently withdrawn the offer.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 648 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.
649 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.
This is a case of the small man trying to achieve justice against the juggernaut of the bureaucracy. It is a case in which the machinery established by Parliament 650 to protect the individual has failed to do so. I know that the Minister will share my concern and that of Mr. Carslake, and my desire to see justice done in this case and for all those many property holders, now and in future, who face, or will face, similar dilemmas.
§ 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, 651 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 652 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.
653 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 654 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.