Isle of Wight Council criticised for planning 'errors'

An investigation into development at Bridge Cottage, on the edge of Niton, by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) saw the council's planning considerations heavily criticised.

An inspector determined errors and wrong advice given by the council contributed to more development than might otherwise have occurred.

The council has accepted the ombudsman’s findings and says it apologises for the mistakes made and the faults identified.

Multiple buildings have been built on the site although it is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation.

The council conducted its own investigations on multiple occasions and requested retrospective planning applications be submitted.

The latest is yet to be determined, despite being submitted at the end of 2020.

Locals complained the site was being used for business by the landowner, Martin Cotton — something the council disagreed with.

An LGSCO inspector said the council's failure to properly assess the development as part of protected sites was a significant failure and led to development classed as permitted development.

They said: "If we cannot rely on the council as the local planning authority to be aware of the position and importance of protected land then it is a matter of serious concern ... to ensure that it remains undisturbed."

Commenting on the ombudsman’s report, an Isle of Wight Council spokesperson said it was an unfortunate error with the digital mapping system that meant the site was not identified as being within the AONB.

Because of the error, the permitted development rules were misapplied, the council said, and incorrect advice was given.

The system has since been corrected and planning permission was sought which the council deemed as ‘acceptable in planning terms’ having concluded the impacts and taking into account the designations.

The investigation was launched by the LGSCO after a complaint was submitted by 'Ms B' in October 2020, having already followed the council’s complaints procedure.

The LGSCO also found the council misunderstood the permitted development rules and failed to consult with Natural England.

In recognition of the injustice caused, the council has agreed to review its current procedures, officer training has been undertaken already and will pay £300 to a charity of Ms B's choice.

Another fault was the authority’s failure to notice the initial development had been included in drawings of the retrospective application, ‘unintentionally’ granting permission to the development the council said. Although the LGSCO pointed out created ‘unacceptable uncertainty’ about potential damage to the site.

The council spokesperson sought to reassure the public the planning authority’s decision-making, on the communities behalf, is of consistently high quality.