1 SUMMARY

1.1 The principle issues of complaint relate to a delay in the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the failure to stop unauthorised tipping. The Ombudsman has found:

- Maladministration by the former Avon County Council causing injustice.

- No maladministration by the former Wansdyke Council or by Bath and North East Somerset Council.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Committee confirm agreement with the Ombudsman’s conclusion and agree to pay the recommended sum to the complainants.

2.2 That the Committee note that the Ombudsman concludes that since the situation was inherited by this Authority, the Council has properly responded to complaints of unauthorised tipping and has sought to implement where possible the terms of the Section 106 Agreement. It is not considered that there is any need to amend current procedures.

3. RESOURCE & CORPORATE POLICY IMPLICATIONS

3.1 Financial: There is no budgetary provision for this specific issue and as such the cost will have to be met from existing Service budgets.

3.2 Staffing: No direct implications.

3.3 Equalities: No direct implications.

3.4 Economic: No direct implications.

3.5 Environment: No direct implications.

3.6 Council Wide Impact: None other than those referred to above.

4. BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

4.1 This is a long running case, which relates to an issue which started in March 1990 and was finally resolved in early 1998. During that period there have been three Councils involved - Avon County Council, Wansdyke District Council, and this Authority.

4.2 The case involves a tip site in Queen Charlton for which an application for planning permission was submitted to Avon County Council in 1990. Although permission was granted in principle in 1990 the Section 106 Agreement was not signed until May 1995. During that period there were complaints that unauthorised tipping was taking place.

4.3 In reaching this conclusion the Ombudsman’s report states:

“Despite numerous inquiries from Mr. and Mrs. X over the years, it was not until their MP wrote on their behalf in June 1994 that the County Council took the final steps necessary to grant planning permission. A substantial part of this delay was due to nothing being done to further the Section 106 Agreement between early 1991 and mid-1994. I recognising the Council’s view that it is the responsibility of an applicant to pursue completion of such Agreements since planning permission cannot be issued until this is done. But the length of time taken before the Agreement was concluded meant that the Council was effectively unable to take action over unauthorised tipping, despite it knowing that some tipping was occurring. The County Council’s failure to chase the progress of the Agreement with Mr. Y was maladministration.

I accept, however, that unauthorised tipping was infrequent and that both Councils generally pursued complaints when Mr. and Mrs. X brought them to their attention. Although situated directly opposite the site, it is clear that Mr. and Mrs. Z did not contact the County Council as they were under the mistaken belief that planning permission had been issued. Despite the lack of complaints, the evidence shows that there were sporadic instances of unauthorised tipping which went unchecked, and that this caused unwarranted noise, dust and an unsightly outlook for the Stones. On balance, I believe that there would have been fewer of these events had the maladministration I have identified not occurred.

There is a road and another field between Mr. and Mrs. X’s property and the tip site so I do not believe that they have suffered any significant injustice from loss of amenity as a result of the County Council’s delay. But they have suffered the frustration of having frequently to raise the issue with County Council officers and their MP.

Planning permission was eventually granted by the County Council in June 1995, and the situation was inherited by the new Bath and North East Somerset Council in April 1996. Since then, it seems to me that the Council has properly responded to complaints of unauthorised tipping and has sought to implement where possible the terms of the Section 106 Agreement.”

5. FINDINGS

5.1 The Ombudsman “Found no maladministration by the former Wansdyke District Council or by Bath and North East Somerset Council”. However, he found that “there had been maladministration by the former County Council which had caused injustice to the complainants. As the County Council no longer exists it falls to Bath and North East Somerset Council to consider any recommendation I make to remedy the injustice caused by its predecessor. To remedy the injustice the Council should:

(a) Pay the first complainant £500 for their avoidable loss of amenity.

(b) Pay the second complainant £250 to compensate them for their time and trouble in pursuing their complaint with the County Council and with me.”

6. CONSULTATION

6.1 No consultation has taken place other than with the statutory and professional officers.

6.2 A copy of the report has been sent to the local Members.