A small, tight-knit community was denied the chance to stay together due to a catalogue of errors by HS2 Ltd, an investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has found.

A group of six families, from Staffordshire, whose homes were set to be destroyed because they were on the HS2 route, fell victim of a number of failings by HS2 Ltd over two years, placing them under severe stress and worry, hugely impacting their home lives, jobs, careers and health.

The families, who live in a hamlet between Weeford and Packington, near Lichfield, Staffordshire, which is on Phase One of the HS2 route which runs from London to the West Midlands, were given the option of reimbursement for their homes or to come up with proposals which could enable them to stay together and relocate as a community.

They spent considerable time and effort drawing up proposals, but over the course of two years HS2 Ltd repeatedly failed to communicate their views on the proposals within agreed deadlines, cancelled meetings at the last minute and postponed other meetings, giving the families false hope that their plans would be considered, when in fact no feedback was ever given and it is not clear if the proposals were fully considered at all.

The investigation found that HS2 Ltd’s repeated delay in commenting on the families’ relocation proposal made an already stressful situation worse. By failing to communicate with them effectively, HS2 Ltd unnecessarily prolonged the uncertainty, stress and worry they were experiencing.

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Julie Mellor said:

'This small tight-knit community now faces separation due to a catalogue of errors by HS2 Ltd.

'Despite HS2 Ltd encouraging those affected by the project to work with them to come up with solutions, these families were made to feel as though their proposal had simply disappeared into a black hole, leaving them with no option but to accept compensation for their homes and abandon any hope of them staying together as a community.

'The ordeal these families have endured highlights the dire consequences of public sector organisations getting it wrong and not communicating effectively with people.'

Some of the families have already sold their homes and others are in the process of selling them, before demolition starts in the hamlet when the construction of Phase One of HS2 gets underway, which is currently planned to begin in 2017.

A spokesperson for the Flats Lane and Knox Grave Lane Residents Group, Jonathan Loescher, said:

'As a community we are neither for or against HS2 as a project. We attempted to engage with HS2 Ltd in a positive and constructive way but for years we were treated with contempt, delays and maladministration, as today’s report shows.

'We loved where we lived and worked. We wanted to work with HS2 Ltd to try and explore the possibility of being able to continue to live within the immediate local area, save our businesses and give us the opportunity to maintain our existing lifestyles. Now most of the community has left the area.

'Being subject to this ordeal for two years was exhausting, demoralising and made us lose all faith with the ability of HS2 Ltd to deal with us fairly.

'We would like to thank the staff of the PHSO for their thorough investigation and reporting of the issues we have faced. We would also like to thank our MP Christopher Pincher for his support throughout our ordeal.'

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman - which investigates unresolved complaints about UK government departments and other public bodies - investigated complaints from the families about HS2 Ltd’s communication and engagement with them, including the way in which HS2 Ltd handled their complaints.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman recommended that HS2 Ltd pay each of the six families between £750 and £4,000 in recognition of the failings identified in the investigation.

It has also recommended that HS2 Ltd conducts and publishes the results of an independent review into its engagement, communication and complaint handling, within six months and publish the outcome of the implementation of the recommendations in that review.

Planners must ensure they refer to the correct legislation when considering applications affecting heritage sites, the Local Government Ombudsman has said.

The LGO is highlighting the situation following a complaint about Northampton Borough Council, in which planning officers recommended councillors grant planning permission for a café extension in a conservation area, within a short distance of a Grade 1 listed building. 

Grade 1 listings are rare and represent buildings or monuments of ‘exceptional importance’ and so planning law affords them special protection.  However, in this case the council did not identify the correct legislation when deciding the planning application. 

The popular café, which sits in a park in the town, is owned by a local elected councillor. The café is some 60 metres from the listed building and lies within a conservation area. 

A planning officer involved in determining the application consulted with the council’s conservation officer, who said any works to the café would impact upon the setting of the listed building and upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. 

The conservation officer recommended amendments be made to the design to improve its appearance and reduce the impact upon the listed building and conservation area.

Despite this concern, the planning officer omitted the conservation officer’s recommendation in his report to members and recommended approval of the application.

The officer referred to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, where he should have based his recommendation on the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.  This Act imposes a duty to pay special attention on both preserving the building or its setting, and also preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

A regular park user complained to the LGO about the council’s decision.  During the LGO investigation, it became apparent the council had not consulted with Historic England (then English Heritage).  The LGO contacted Historic England, and a representative from that organisation said it was ‘clear’ that the café extension would affect the setting of the listed building and the council should therefore have consulted them about the proposals.

The LGO also uncovered correspondence from Historic England which shows this was not the first occasion the council had not consulted properly with them on planning applications affecting historic assets.

The LGO investigation found the council’s failure to have regard to a material planning consideration – that of the setting of the listed building and conservation area – was fault.  It also found the council’s failure to consult with Historic England was fault, and there was fault in the way the council validated the application contrary to its own planning policy.

 Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman said:

 “Local people will only have faith in the planning process if applications are considered against the right local and national frameworks. This case highlights how this trust can be lost when buildings of exceptional importance are not properly protected.

 “I would now urge Northampton Borough Council to consider my report and accept my recommendations to help preserve the area’s assets for future generations.  I would also encourage other local authorities to check their own planning procedures to make sure their historic buildings are given the proper protection afforded to them in law.”

To remedy the complaint, the LGO has recommended that the council introduce conservation training for all its planning officers and undertake an immediate review of its procedures for dealing with planning applications which affect heritage assets. It should put measures in place to ensure and monitor that all applications affecting heritage assets are referred to its conservation officer and on their advice, Historic England.

The council should also maintain a record of all pre-planning advice which should be made available to the public when any subsequent planning application is validated.

The council has also been asked to apologise to the man who raised the complaint.

La Abogacía Española ha informado al Defensor del Pueblo de que estudiará su recomendación de incluir formación específica en materia de discapacidad para los abogados.

La institución del Defensor del Pueblo formuló una recomendación a la Abogacía Española para que en los cursos que imparten las Escuelas de Práctica Jurídica se incluya como materia específica el examen y estudio de la discapacidad y su incidencia en todos los ámbitos, con especial énfasis en materia penal.

Al Defensor del Pueblo le preocupa especialmente la situación de las personas con discapacidad intelectual que ingresan en un centro penitenciario sin diagnóstico. Así, considera imprescindible que los futuros abogados conozcan esta materia y los derechos de este colectivo tan vulnerable.

La Abogacía ha anunciado que analizará este tema en su próxima comisión de formación.

 La Junta Electoral Central ha respondido al Defensor del Pueblo que, en las candidaturas presentadas para las elecciones del 20 diciembre, no figura ningún condenado por terrorismo u otros delitos que inhabiliten a los candidatos.

La Defensora del Pueblo, Soledad Becerril, se dirigió el pasado 17 de noviembre al presidente de la Junta Electoral Central, Carlos Granados, para que se evitara que los condenados por delitos de terrorismo puedan presentar su candidatura a las próximas elecciones generales convocadas para el 20 de diciembre.

En su respuesta, la Junta Electoral Central subraya que “la información aportada por la Audiencia Nacional permite comprobar que no está afectado por esas condenas ninguno de los candidatos proclamados por las respectivas Juntas Electorales Provinciales de los territorios afectados”.

La Defensora del Pueblo recordó que el artículo 6.2.b de la Ley Orgánica 5/1985 de Régimen Electoral General establece que son inelegibles los condenados por sentencia, aunque no sea firme, por delitos de terrorismo cuya pena contemple inhabilitación para el ejercicio de derecho de sufragio pasivo.

Según la ley, tampoco pueden ser elegidos aquellos condenados cuya sentencia establezca inhabilitación absoluta, especial o de suspensión para empleo o cargo público en los términos previstos en la legislación penal.

Con esta actuación, la Institución quiere que se garantice el pleno cumplimiento de la ley en una cuestión que hiere la sensibilidad ciudadana y especialmente a las  víctimas de terrorismo.