A Case Study: by Keith Edmunds

Introduction and Document Index

Introduction

This is the introduction to my case history to demonstrate how a corrupt Local Government Ombudsman system covers up for Local Authority Councils when they have committed maladministration and, how far they are prepared to go to perpetrate these cover ups - in my case - aiding and abetting perjury, which is of course a criminal offence. 

In 1993 a very wealthy Developer in Portsmouth applied to develop a site behind my house and the houses of my neighbours to the south of us. The development would cover the entire site to a height of four storeys. The planning application was supported by Portsmouth Planning Officers, who currently, 2008, have two High Court cases proceeding against them, for planning corruption.  

My neighbours and I objected to the planning application and made deputations to planning committee, who rejected it. The developer appealed the rejection and the Planning Inspector rejected the appeal on the following grounds:

• Loss of light

• Overdevelopment of the site

• Overwhelming sense of enclosure

• Turning the corner to the full extent of the site. 

Please visit my photo gallery for a better understanding of the issues, click here.

In 1998 the developer returned with a design for a building three storeys high but still covering the entire site (the nearest building is three metres away). We once again objected for all the reasons the Planning Inspector rejected the appeal in 1993 and for loss of light. Once again the planning officers supported the application. At planning committee they brought a consultant Architect on light from Portsmouth University who sat thorough the planning application but did not say anything. The planning officer told planning committee that the application did not infringe our legal right to light in any way, and the planning application was granted. 

I found the whole business very strange and the following week went to the Civic Offices and looked at the file on the application. In the file was a report from the Consultant Architect which stated unequivocally that the development did not and could not meet the light requirements of the BRE Good Practice Guide on light. In fact any development to meet these standards would have to be severely scaled down. I asked for a copy of the report and the planning officers refused. I then wrote to the Chief Executive stating that I was making a complaint and asked for a copy of the document, with a threat that if I did not get satisfaction I would report the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman (silly me!). 

I did indeed receive the document with a woolly reply to my complaint from the Chief Executive. I wrote further on a number of occasions slowly pinning these incompetent and corrupt bureaucrats down, until the Chief Executive refused to answer my queries further. I then made a formal complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (silly me!). In my naivety, I believed that the LGO would investigate the complaint with the cast iron evidence we had presented him with and find for us against the Council. Three months passed (by which time we had lost our legal right to take the planning permission to judicial review) and to our complete astonishment the LGO found that the Council had done nothing wrong and that he ‘would not investigate this matter further!’ 

We were absolutely amazed. The Ombudsman by the way was and remains Jerry White, more popularly known as Jerry Whitewash. Although we complained, we received a reply from him that he would not answer any more of our letters (a similar tactic to the one used by the Chief Executive of the Council previously). 

We then wrote to the developer and threatened to sue him, for loss of light, if he built the building. 

In 2003 the building, still had not been built and the developer had to reapply for his planning permission. At the planning meeting we told planning committee that they had been lied to at the original meeting, when planning permission had been granted, we provided them with copies of the former consultant’s report on light, and asked them to revoke the planning permission. The same planning officer then once again lied to planning committee saying that ‘the development does meet all the BRE Good Practice Guide requirements on light.’ The planning permission was granted once again! 

At this stage, we again complained to the LGO but this time we did not pull any punches and accused the planning officer of lying to planning committee, which of course he had done. 

The LGO investigated and once again found that the Council had done nothing wrong, even though neither the planning officer nor the Council had at any time denied that he had lied to planning committee. Once again we were absolutely flabbergasted by the blatant cover up perpetrated by the LGO who, again, when we complained refused to acknowledge any further correspondence from us! 

In 2004 the developer came back, with a new design, this time of three/four storeys. The application was once again supported by the corrupt planning officers. I briefed the local press to be present and we accused the planning officers of corruption at planning committee. The application was rejected on a number of grounds including ‘loss of light.’ 

In 2005 the developer came back again for planning permission for a similar design with very minor modifications.  Even though the planning officer admitted under cross examination from supportive Councillors, that the light loss had not changed at all from the refusal in 2004; planning permission was granted. 

Fortunately, by this stage the Freedom of Information Act was now in force. We once again complained to the LGO but this time presented him with incontrovertible evidence obtained through the FOI Act that the Chief executive of Portsmouth City Council had lied to him, committed perjury, in one of our previous complaints to the LGO.

Document index

[Back to the top]