Red-faced planners admit 60 blunders

By kliptrot kate liptrot kliptrot@derbytelegraph.co.uk

SIXTY major building projects in Derby were not properly advertised to the public before being given the go-ahead.

In what has been described as "a disaster for democracy", council officers failed to post adverts in the local press about the schemes.

This means members of the public were less likely to be aware of them and raise any objections before approval was granted.

Council rules state that if four or more complaints are made, plans have to be discussed by councillors at a public meeting instead of being approved privately by officers.

The Derby Telegraph exclusively revealed in March that a mental health unit in the city was agreed by officers without being referred to the planning committee.

Earlier this month, city planning chief Jonathan Guest admitted the development should have been advertised in the pages of the local press.

Now a report by planning chief Richard Williams has recommended that councillors consider whether to withdraw permission for the scheme – a move that could leave the authority open to legal action from the developer.

It states that checks have since revealed officers failed to advertise dozens of other major planning applications in the press since July 2006.

Paul Bayliss, the councillor representing Alvaston, where the mental health unit is being built, said: "It's an absolute disaster for democracy and for the city council."

If permission for the hospital in City Gate is not withdrawn, residents living near the 46-bed development may have to be given compensation by the authority.

A council spokesman said he could not say whether permission could be revoked from the other developments, or compensation paid, until the matter had been before councillors at a meeting due to take place tonight.

He said details of the other developments would not be revealed until after that.

Mr Bayliss said: "Of all the things the council has got wrong over the years, this has to be the worst mistake I've come across in my career as a councillor since 1996.

"It's absolutely appalling and is going to be a massive problem for the city."

By law, any development which has floor space of 1,000 square metres or is a residential scheme of 10 or more homes should be advertised in the local press.

Three planning applications were lodged for the City Gate hospital development, with the floor space ranging from 2,900 to 3,500 square metres.

After it emerged the scheme was not advertised before being granted permission by officers under delegated powers, officers were asked to check all major applications approved since July 2006 to see whether the same failure to advertise applied to them.

A report to tonight's planning control committee by Mr Williams says: "This checking has found 60 applications which have resulted in planning permission being granted without there having been a press advertisement."

The report says that 59 of these had public consultation "in other forms" including notices posted on the development sites, letters to residents and reports to councillors.

In the City Gate hospital case, notices were posted around the site, but residents say they never saw them.

Letters were not sent to their homes because, under national planning guidance, they were deemed to live too far away from the site.

The report states that in July 2006, planners took a decision to stop press adverts "on the grounds that this was not a cost-effective way of promoting and publicising and that we would still be meeting our statutory requirement for publicity".

It says a checklist of planning procedures that was consulted before the decision failed to state that advertising in the press was required by law.

Councillor Alan Graves, who also represents Alvaston, described the situation as a "farce".

He said: "I think perhaps what we need is a new planning department. After all this time, we find out they're not doing it right which means they've not served the people of Derby properly."

Mr Williams has recommended that before councillors consider whether to withdraw permission for the mental health hospital, they give local residents an opportunity to comment on the development.

He states: "It is open to the council to revoke that permission and/or require the removal of the limited amount of work already carried out."

He outlines two problems with this – firstly that the development met planning requirements in every other way, and secondly, that the Government would have to approve a decision to stop work unless the developer – private healthcare company Cygnet – agreed.

He writes: "Other possible 'remedies' could include making an apology or compensation to the residents most seriously affected by the proposed development."

Local resident Madeline Hackett has been leading Wilmorton Residents' Group in a campaign against the way planning permission was approved.

She said: "There should be a wholesale public inquiry into the actions of the council's planning department and work should be called to a halt."

After the Telegraph revealed the hospital had been given the go ahead, residents asked council watchdog the Local Government Ombudsman to hold an investigation, which is set to begin in June.

Officers at the council have now been given extra training, councillors receive a notification of each application in their ward, and a review of procedures is being carried out.