Wirral councillors ordered back to ‘planning school’ after houses were built too close to a man’s home

Wirral News - by Liam Murphy

COUNCILLORS must go on a course outlining the basics of planning law after a developer was allowed to build a new estate too close to a man’s home.

Wirral council’s planning committee was officially criticised following an inquiry into the way an application was handled.

Beechwood resident Joe Gladman was left struggling to maintain his privacy because a new housing development was too close to his home, which then plummeted in price.

The properties should have been built at least 21 metres away, but were found to be only 18. The Local Government Ombudsman found the council guilty of maladministration and or-dered it to pay compensation to Mr Gladman.

A chartered surveyor estimated the loss in value at £20,000, but a district valuer’s report done for the council put the fall at £5,000, which has been paid to Mr Gladman. Committee members must also attend a day-long refresher.

Mr Gladman said: “It was not about the money, it was the principle and the way I have been treated.”

The LGO investigator’s report said there was “maladministration causing the complainant an injustice” and asked the council to settle with the complainant.

Mr Gladman was also paid £250 for “the time and trouble” he spent pursuing his complaint, which took three years.

Initially, the council claimed the new properties were 36m from Mr Gladman’s home – but when the distance was measured, it was discovered they were just 18 metres away.

Current planning committee chairman David Elderton said: “One can only regret that this one went haywire, and I am confident we are far more aggressive now.’’

Special educational needs - Maladministration causing injustice

Local Government Ombudsman

A boy with special educational needs missed a year’s schooling because Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council wrongly refused to take responsibility for educating him. The Ombudsman says “No reasonable authority would have relied upon such insubstantial information to make decision about a vulnerable child…” and recommends it to agree with the parents and the school on what can be done to help the boy catch up on his missed education, and to pay compensation.

The boy’s father (called ‘Mr H’ in the report) won an appeal to a Special Education Needs and Disability Tribunal about the secondary school to be named in his younger son’s statement of special educational needs. Almost immediately afterwards the Council’s Education officers became suspicious that Mr H’s family were not actually living at the property they owned in the Council’s area. The Council refused to take responsibility for the younger son’s education. Mr H provided full information about his circumstances and living arrangements to the Council Tax Service, which accepted that the family were using their Wirral property as their main residence. When the Council’s Legal Department subsequently made enquiries of Mr H, he declined to send it the same information he had already provided, but twice directed it to the Council Tax Section. The Legal Department did not contact the Council Tax Section and the Education Service continued to refuse to take responsibility for the boy’s education.

The Council would not accept responsibility for the boy and did not comply with the law until the Ombudsman began her enquiries. As a result, the boy lost almost a year of education at the school specified in his statement of special educational needs, his parents paid for private tuition, and they experienced stress and anxiety in trying to resolve the issue.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends the Council to:

• accept that it has no justification for its claim not to be responsible for Mr H’s son;
• discuss and agree with the school and the parents whether there is any additional provision that could be made to help their son ‘catch up’ on the year’s schooling that he has missed;
• reserve a sum of money, equivalent to the cost of educating Mr H’s son at the school for a year, in a fund until he has completed year 11 and then deploy the fund on any additional educational provision that the school and an educational psychologist recommend as being beneficial;
• pay Mr H £1,000 in recognition of his anxiety, stress, time and trouble; and
• pay Mr H a further £655 to reimburse private tutoring fees for his son during 2007

Children and family services - Maladministration causing injustice

Local Government Ombudsman

The complaint

Mr E, a foster carer, complained about a number of issues connected with the placement of two young children with him and his adult daughter for fostering. The children were those of Mr E’s ex partner, and were half-siblings to his adult daughter but no relation to him. The Council placed the children after reports from the children’s father (who was separated from their mother) and others that the children were neglected.

The Ombudsman’s investigation

The Ombudsman found that the Council:

• made no checks before it placed the children with Mr E and his adult daughter;

• did not visit the children for several weeks after the placement began, in breach of the fostering regulations;

• gave no financial or other support to Mr E; and

• delayed in arranging a review panel when Mr E’s complaints about these issues were considered through the statutory social services complaints procedure.

The Ombudsman commented:

“The Council placed two vulnerable young children in the care of [Mr E] and his daughter without even the most basic checks on them, their home and their ability to look after young children. Fortunately [Mr E] and his daughter have proved to be appropriate carers who have apparently done an excellent job in looking after the children who have come to no harm. This is no thanks to the Council.”

Outcome

The Council agreed to pay Mr E and his daughter £10,350 representing the foster care allowance that Mr E should have received. The Ombudsman also proposed that the Council should:

• review its practices and procedures to ensure that there would be no repetition of children being placed with carers without proper checks being made;

• conduct an audit of other emergency placements; and

• make quarterly reports to the appropriate Council committee on complaints received under the statutory procedure.