Appendix A: Local Government Ombudsman's report into his investigation into the complaint by Mr and Mrs Balchin against Norforlk County Council

• Key to names used
• Report Summary
• Introduction
• Legal and Administrative Background
• Time
• The Road Scheme
• Previous Complaint
• Legal Provisions
• The Colonel Owen case
• The abandonment of the bypass scheme
• Involvement of the Parliamentary Ombudsman
• Consultation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman
• Investigation
• Events Relevant to the Complaint
• First Committee consideration
• Second Committee consideration
• Approval of the Road Scheme
• Third Committee consideration
• Events after the October 1992 Committee consideration
• The Group Leaders’ meeting
• Mr Balchin’s solicitor’s general comments
• Mr and Mrs Balchin’s position in December 1992
• The County Council's comments on my draft Conclusions and Finding
• Conclusions
• Finding

Key to names used

Report Summary

Highways

In 1992, the complainant's then home was adjacent to the line of a bypass the Council intended to build. He asked that it should buy his home but it declined to do so. In so declining therelevant Committee failed to take into account new legislation and his changing circumstances. Had it done so, the Ombudsman concluded that it would have bought his home and greatly improved his financial circumstances as a consequence.

Finding

Maladministration causing injustice.

Recommended remedy

The Council to pay the complainant £100,000.00.

Report on an Investigation into Complaint No 03/B/18222 against Norfolk County Council, October 2005

Introduction

1. Mr Balchin complains that there were failings between 1992 and 1996 in the way the Council dealt with requests from him and his advisers for the Council to purchase Swans Harbour, his home at Wroxham, in advance of an intended road scheme. He says that as a consequence of the Council’s failure he lost an established profitable business, his home and his assets, and that both he and Mrs Balchin have suffered from stress, worry, anxiety and ill health as a consequence.

2. For legal reasons, I do not normally use the real names of the people or places concerned. But in this report I have decided to reveal the true names of the complainant, and the referring MP (with their permission) and for Mr Balchin’s property. I have done so because of the considerable public interest shown in Mr Balchin’s case over the years; and because the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report to Parliament will in any case put these names in the public domain.

3. One of the Commission’s officers has examined the Council’s files, interviewed officers of the Council and has met the complainant.

Legal and Administrative Background

Time

4. Section 26(4) of the Act[1] provides that:

“a complaint shall not be entertained unless it was made to a Local Commissioner or a member of any Authority concerned within 12 months from the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matters alleged in the complaint, but a Local Commissioner may conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint not made within that period if he considers that it is reasonable to do so.”

5. In this case Sir Michael Lord MP, Mr Balchin’s then MP, complained on his behalf to the Leaders of the then political groups of the Council during 1993. I have therefore taken the view that this restriction on my jurisdiction does not apply to Mr Balchin’s complaint.

The Road Scheme

6. The Council had, for many years, contemplated proposals for a bypass for Wroxham. In July 1986 the Council adopted a preferred route for a bypass immediately along the boundary of Swans Harbour. The plan at Appendix one shows the relationship between Swans Harbour and the proposed route.

Previous Complaint

7. On 27 April 1991 Mr Balchin referred the Council’s handling of the matter to the then Local Government Ombudsman, who declined to investigate the complaint, setting out his reasons in a letter dated 31 May. He was told that the complaint was out of time as regards the Council’s refusal to purchase in December 1987, and that the Ombudsman could see no fault in the manner in which the Council had taken its subsequent decision not to purchase in June 1990.

Back to top

Legal Provisions

8. Under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 a person can claim compensation for the depreciation in value of his property caused by public works such as work on highways. Claims are considered only from the first claim day, which is one year after the first opening of the highway to public traffic. There is no power under this Act to pay compensation to owners of affected properties before this date.

9. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 properties which are required, or parts of which are required, for road schemes are said to be statutorily blighted, and the Council is empowered to purchase the property. Such properties are usually the subject of a Compulsory Purchase Order. Where a property was directly affected by a road scheme (that is, land take was required) the owner can serve a Blight Notice on the Council which obliges it to purchase his home at a valuation which did not take into account the diminution in value caused by the road scheme. Where a blight notice is accepted the owner also receives a home loss payment, surveyors fees and removal costs.

10. Further powers of purchase are contained in Section 246(2) of the Highways Act 1980, whereby a Council may purchase by agreement land the enjoyment of which is (my emphasis) seriously affected by the carrying out of works by the Council for the construction or improvement of a highway or by the use of a built highway. Accordingly this discretion to purchase seriously affected property that does not qualify for compulsory purchase applies only when the property is actually affected, and not before.

11. When Section 62(2) of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 came into force on 25 September 1991, it added a new power to those described above. The new power (Section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980) enabled the Council to alleviate hardship by acquiring by agreement property the enjoyment of which will (my emphasis) in its opinion be seriously affected by the carrying out of works or use of the highway. In other words, the Council was, for the first time, given a discretionary power to purchase in advance a property which was likely to be seriously affected but which was not the subject of a Compulsory Purchase Order. In the context of Mr Balchin’s complaint, this was a significant development.

12. On 4 September 1991, shortly before this new power came into force, the Department of Transport (DoT) issued a Circular to Councils. After describing the new power, the Circular stated:

“Authorities will wish to consider exercising their discretionary powers to acquire property seriously affected – or likely to be seriously affected – wherever this is warranted to alleviate associated hardship.”

It gave no further guidance on how Councils should exercise the new power in respect of local road schemes.

13. On 21 November 1991, in response to a Parliamentary Question, the then Roads and Traffic Minister described the DoT’s approach to the new power in respect of trunk road schemes promoted by the Department. He said that each case would be considered on its merits:

“but as a guideline we would normally expect qualifying properties to lie within about 100 metres of the centre line of the road.”

14. On 17 January 1992 DoT issued a press notice to which were attached the guidelines the Department would apply to its own schemes. It said that it would use its discretion to purchase where it judged that it would be intolerable to the occupier to remain in the property during the works or once the road was open, assessed as a forecast noise level of ‘78 dB(A) Leq (12 hour)’[2]  for six months. This noise level might be present at varying distances from the road, depending on the topography and intervening factors. The guidelines are set out at Appendix Two to my report.

15. Officer G, a highways engineer, told the Commission’s Officer that 103 properties in Wroxham were within 100 metres of the road and would therefore qualify for discretionary consideration for purchase. Of these, six, including Swans Harbour, would sustain high visual impact and varying levels of traffic noise. Three properties were purchased by agreement without the service of a Blight Notice because part of each property would have been required as part of the Scheme.

The Colonel Owen case

16. The application of Section 246(2A) was considered by the Court of Appeal in 1994. The Court quashed the DoT’s decision not to purchase Colonel Owen’s home, noting that the Department’s guidelines (paragraph 14) had been characterised as ‘ineptly drawn’ but confirming that diminution of value is a significant factor to consider when making a judgement as to whether a property was adversely affected.

17. The Council became aware of the judgement in March 1995. Officer A (a senior legal officer) advised that the Council should have proper guidelines for deciding when and when not it would exercise its discretion to acquire properties which are seriously, but not directly, affected by road schemes and that by considering such requests, they must properly consider them in the light of those guidelines. Officer A went on, on 14 March 1995, to draw up a provisional set of criteria. The Council decided to seek Counsel’s opinion to aid it in drawing up guidelines and this opinion was received on 28 June 1995. The copy of the opinion was sent to the Council’s then Director of Planning and Transportation in August 1995 and on 3 November 1995 the Planning and Transportation Committee agreed a set of guidelines for dealing with requests.

18. The Council decided to advertise the existence of the guidelines and did so in several newspapers circulating in the area on 3 May 1996.

The abandonment of the bypass scheme

19. In February 1996 the Council’s Planning and Transportation Committee considered the DoT’s response to the previous year’s Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) submission. It decided to remove the proposal for the bypass which affected Swans Harbour from the consultation document it intended to publish. The Council adopted the TPP submission without the bypass on 8 July 1996 and the proposal was, at that point, effectively abandoned. Officer G told the Commission’s Officer that the Council had taken this position because of difficulties in obtaining relevant consents; the need for further expensive land take to comply with the requirements of another authority; and because it was perceived that Government funding for the road was unlikely to be made available.

Back to top

Involvement of the Parliamentary Ombudsman

20. Sir Michael Lord MP referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman a complaint about alleged failings on the part of the DoT, in connection with the road scheme, on 13 January 1994. The then Parliamentary Ombudsman agreed to investigate the complaint. He produced a report on 21 December 1994 but Mr and Mrs Balchin made an application for judicial review. Their application succeeded, which meant the complaint had to be reinvestigated. As part of his judgement of 25 October 1996, Mr Justice Sedley, as he then was, said the County Council’s response (to Mr Balchin’s request) was:

“on the face of it highly questionable. Although the County Council was duly served it has understandably taken no part in the proceedings, and I hesitate to criticise it in its absence; but the intransigence of its stance towards the Balchins will have been as apparent to the Commissioner as it is to this Court. In 1990, when it first declined to acquire Swans Harbour, the Planning and Transportation Committee must have been considering the power contained in S.246(1). When at the end of 1992 the Balchins bank finally drew the Council’s attention to its new S.246(2A) power, the Council appears to have given no consideration to its exercise; instead it seems to have treated the question as having been effectively foreclosed by its decision not to purchase in 1990. Yet the question in 1992 revolved around a new power which the Council had never entertained; and the decision in 1990, assuming it now had any bearing (which I doubt) had been based upon a reason which, if it were admissible, would justify all public bodies in refusing ever to exercise a discretion to make a payment for fear that other applicants would want to be similarly treated – a textbook example of a ‘fettered discretion’.”

21. The then Parliamentary Ombudsman issued a further report on 14 July 1997, but it too became the subject of further judicial review proceedings in the High Court. Mr and Mrs Balchin again succeeded and their complaint fell to be reinvestigated.

22. The then Parliamentary Ombudsman reported again on 19 September 2000, but that report also became the subject of an application for judicial review and permission was granted in the High Court for a full hearing. Mr and Mrs Balchin again succeeded in the High Court. Accordingly, the complaint fell to be re-investigated a further time.

Consultation by Parliamentary Ombudsman

23. In January 2004 the Parliamentary Ombudsman, used her powers under Section 33(3) of the Local Government Act 1974 to consult me in connection with her investigation. She asked me to consider whether there might be issues associated with Mr Balchin’s complaint to her that I could investigate. I considered that I was not barred from investigating events that had occurred subsequent to my predecessor’s decision of 31 May 1991 (paragraph 7); and that in the interests of justice I should do so.

Back to top

Investigation -Events Relevant to the Complaint

24. Mr Balchin told the Commission’s Officer that in 1984 he had been running a successful business from which he was able to draw up to £50,000 per year, sufficient to provide a comfortable lifestyle, including the private education of his children. Mr Balchin said that he had long sought a property in Wroxham. In 1984 the opportunity arose to purchase land in what he regarded as “the finest road in Norfolk”. He bought the land and turned an existing games building on it into Swans Harbour, a five bedroomed house complete with 40 foot long boat house for his cruiser. The property was largely completed in 1986 and he had valuations done, the highest of which was £435,000. Mr Balchin said he continued to prosper in this period and in addition to Swans Harbour owned a holiday cottage and a block of flats. He and Mrs Balchin had been very happy at Swans Harbour and had been looking forward to their retirement there.

25. At this point Swans Harbour was subject to a conventional domestic mortgage of £30,000 with Oulton Building Society, which Mr Balchin said that he took out to maximise the tax advantages of such a loan (at the time income tax relief was given against interest payments). In addition, the overdraft which funded his business activities was secured against Swans Harbour. His business was as a builder and developer and as he encountered each project he would seek funding from his bank. If the bank agreed, the overdraft would be increased to cover the new project. As each project was completed, the bank would be repaid and the overdraft would reduce in size. The size of the overdraft therefore varied over the period. The result of searches carried out against his long-since dissolved two companies shows that from the second half of the 1970s until 1985 there was a regular pattern of borrowing against a substantial and wide-ranging portfolio of properties in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. To protect its investments, Mr Balchin says that every twelve months or so the bank would carry out a search against Swans Harbour to see if it still provided security for the overdraft.

26. In 1987 Mr Balchin said that he was told by his neighbour that the neighbour’s property was affected by a Council road proposal and that the Council was to buy it. Mr Balchin asked the Council to purchase his home. He says that the Council had suggested that he and his wife should put Swans Harbour on the market to prove that it was blighted. He had approached virtually every estate agent in the county, but they had all refused to put the house on the market because of the bypass proposals. One agent had said they would do so, but only if Mr and Mrs Balchin paid them £2,000, because they did not anticipate a sale. Mr and Mrs Balchin have said that they could not afford this amount.

27. A local firm of estate agents had eventually taken the initiative to prove that the house was blighted. The local estate agents were unable to sell Swans Harbour so on 27 April 1987 Mr Balchin asked the Council to purchase the property, which he said was severely blighted by the bypass. On 21 May the Council declined to do so, because no part of the property was needed for the bypass. The estate agents wrote to the Council again, saying that they realised that no part of the property was required, but there was every indication that the proposed route would be adjacent to the Balchins’ property at a height of some six metres above existing ground level. They added that, from their discussions with DoT in similar cases, the Department had agreed that a Blight Notice might be considered where a property was adjacent to a proposed highway, as in this case. They urged the Council to reconsider the matter.

28. The Council’s Director of Property and Planning referred the estate agent’s letter to the County Surveyor, saying that, if the County Council purchased the property at that point, it would:

“have the same management problem as with [Waders], and even if we let the property, the rental income is unlikely to cover loan charges. If the County Council purchases the property at any stage, we will have to pay full open market value. Following the scheme, the property will be substantially less valuable. However, if we do not purchase, our only obligation will be to pay a claim under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which is for loss of value due to physical factors. Compensation under Part 1 will be significantly less than for the loss in value of the property on a before and after basis’.

The Director asked whether the matter should be referred to Committee.

29. Mr Balchin again contacted the Council and was visited on 4 September 1987 by Officer B, a Valuation Officer. Mr Balchin’s notes record that Officer B said that he would go back to the Council and put to them strongly that they should consider purchasing Swans Harbour, especially because it was held as security for Mr Balchin’s bank overdraft which enabled him to stay in business. Officer B’s notes do not support this, but do show that Mr Balchin did make clear to Officer B the difficulty of his position and the impact on Swans Harbour of the road proposal.

Back to top

First Committee consideration

30. The Council’s Planning and Transportation Committee considered Mr Balchin’s request for it to purchase his home on 17 December 1987. The report recorded that Mr Balchin used his property as security for his business loans and that any decrease in the value of Swans Harbour would reduce the amount he could borrow and therefore adversely affect his business. The report stated that:

“the bypass when built will completely alter the character of the house”.

31. The report said that it was believed that the value of the property would be in the region of £325,000 to £375,000 including costs. The Council would be able to sell the property after the bypass had been constructed for a considerably reduced price, then valued at £150,000 to £175,000. The report observes that it might be difficult for the Council to resist purchase of another property if it purchased Swans Harbour. The County Treasurer’s comments in the report indicated that no government grant would be payable were the Council to purchase and that other savings would have to be found were the Committee to agree to Mr Balchin’s request:

“If the Council purchases Swans Harbour, it may be difficult to resist a request to purchase another property. Similar cost implications would apply to this property. It is possible that a similar case could be made for other properties.”

32. The Committee resolved that:

“a) as Mr Balchin had no statutory right to insist on the property being acquired, he be informed that the Council did not agree to purchase it and;

b) a similar policy be applied in other cases where the owners’ properties are unaffected by the scheme.”

33. Mr Balchin told my Officer that in January 1990 he had gone to the bank to draw some money to fund his domestic activities. The bank had refused him the money and had frozen all his business and domestic accounts. He was therefore left without money to live. He said that he had learned that the bank had conducted a search (paragraph 25) which had revealed for the first time the existence of the bypass. It had realised that Swans Harbour would not provide security for the overdraft and had therefore decided to lend him no more money. After this point, he had not been able to make interest payments on the mortgage.

34. Mr Balchin’s Solicitors wrote to the Council on 30 April 1990. The letter says:

“Due to the burden of high current interest rates and general financial constraints, our clients are being forced to realise their capital invested in Swans Harbour and utilise such funds to reduce their borrowings and to purchase an alternative residence in a lower price range.”

35. The letter said that a sale had been agreed at £375,000 but then fell through because the purchaser became aware of the bypass scheme. The letter asked the County Council to open negotiations for purchase.

36. The Solicitors wrote again on 12 June 1990, this time to the Chair of the Property and Transportation Committee. The letter recorded that Mr Balchin’s bank required that his borrowings, secured on the property, had to be reduced by £100,000 immediately. The Solicitors again asked the Council to purchase Swans Harbour. Officer A agreed to place the letter before the Planning and Transportation Committee.

37. I have not been able to ascertain exactly when Mr Balchin ceased trading, but it seems to have been some time between December 1987 and June 1990.

Back to top

Second Committee consideration

38. The Planning and Transportation Committee considered the request to purchase on 21 June 1990. The report recorded the importance of the property to Mr Balchin’s business and the fact that a sale had recently fallen through. The legal position recorded in the report states that the County Surveyor is satisfied that the property is not directly affected by the scheme and as a result the Council is under no obligation to purchase it or any part of it. It also records the provisions for compensation (paragraph 8). It says that the reduction in value payable by way of compensation could be up to 40% but because of the limitations imposed by the statutory code it was doubtful if the claim could be more than 20%. The report also observes that there was no financial provision so if the Council wished to purchase the property it would have to be done from savings in other parts of the County Surveyor’s budget. Paragraph six of the report says:

“Precedent

If the County Council were to acquire the property or provide some other assistance for the Balchins that could precipitate claims from owners of other properties indirectly affected by the scheme. The only difference between this case and other cases would be with regard to the degree of hardship and the extent to which the scheme indirectly affected the property.”

40. The report states:

“Conclusion

Mr and Mrs Balchin face the possibility of bankruptcy or homelessness and the road scheme is a contributory factor to this. Your officers therefore sympathise with the position in which the Balchins find themselves. On the other hand we do not consider it is in the County Council’s interest to acquire the property or to make any substantial advance payment of compensation because of the implications for the Highways budget and the precedent it would create.”

40. Officer C, a Senior Legal Officer, wrote to Mr Balchin’s Solicitors on 25 June 1990. The letter says that Members “unanimously” rejected the request for assistance on the basis that

“the Council do not regard the situation to warrant the authority to have any legal obligation to purchase.”

41. The Solicitors wrote again to the Council on 25 October 1990 and Officer A replied the same day to set out how the construction would be carried out in such a way as to minimise the effect on Swans Harbour.

42. Mr and Mrs Balchin moved out of Swans Harbour in or about September 1991 for both financial and health reasons. Their doctor had suggested that they move away from the house in order to alleviate the stress and impact that the whole saga was having on their health, in particular on Mrs Balchin. They have since lived in rented accommodation.

Back to top

Approval of the Road Scheme

43. The Council had to defend a Public Inquiry into objections to the proposal. The Secretary of State sent his Inspector’s report to the Council on 3 June 1992. He upheld the Council’s scheme. Mr Balchin had objected to the proposal and drawn the Inspector’s attention to his difficult circumstances. The Inspector said

“having heard Mr Balchin’s evidence, and having during my site inspection studied a mock up of the profile of the road on embankment in close proximity to Swans Harbour, it is my view that the Route, even when landscaping measures have taken their full effect, and particularly during the construction phase, would have a somewhat overpowering effect on this property.”

He continued

“The County Council has declined to purchase this property and considers that the problem is predominantly a matter for compensation. I can only say that in all fairness, if the County Council will not purchase the property, then, if the decision is made in favour of the Eastern Route, adequate compensation arrangements should be agreed urgently, not the least in the light of Mr Balchin’s stated financial situation.”

He concluded

“In advocating confirmation of the Eastern Route, however, I would draw attention to the particularly adverse effect which in my opinion it would have on Swans Harbour for reasons I have described earlier. I would hope that the plight of the owners of [this property] would be looked on sympathetically by the County Council.”

44. Officer G told the Commission’s Officer that on completion of the road the entire southern boundary of Swans Harbour would have been faced with an embankment between 3.2 and 6.1 metres above ground level and with a 1.8 metre noise reduction fence at the top. The first 2 metres of the embankment would have been a retaining wall, used in part to ensure the embankment did not require any land take from Swans Harbour. Although extensive landscaping would be provided, it would take up to 20 years to be fully established. The plans show a distance of approximately 6 metres from the wall of Swans Harbour to the start of the embankment and some 22 metres to the mid point of the road.

45. In a memorandum of 18 June 1992, Officer D, a Valuer, drew Officer A’s attention to the references to Mr Balchin in the Inspector’s decision. He observed that the new powers arising from the Planning and Compensation Act 1990 (paragraph 11) allowed the Council to acquire properties not specifically required but that he was not aware of any situation when such a purchase could be forced upon the Council.

46. Officer A replied on 23 June 1992. He set out the contents of Section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980 (paragraph 11) and observed that the Secretary of State’s decision letter did not impose a legal obligation on the Council to reconsider its position regarding Swans Harbour. He went on to say that nevertheless the County Surveyor might feel it appropriate to do so. He observed that the Secretary of State’s letter simply referred to “adequate compensation arrangements” which could be interpreted to mean that the Council try to agree quickly with Mr Balchin the compensation for disturbance (paragraph 8).

47. On 1 May 1992 Mr Balchin wrote to his MEP. He told him:

“the bank overdraft has accrued to £108,902.27 on the Business Account, £46,470.13 on my private account and £130,000 with [Hickling Building Society]. This is just interest upon interest piling up.

It is clearly apparent that the ability to realise invested equity in the property from the sale of Swans Harbour has been denied to me by NCC and all our savings of some £18,000, have been swallowed up in legal costs. This, together with the fact that I have been put out of business through no fault of my own is, I feel, disgusting to say the least. All our hopes and dreams were put into Swans Harbour and to lose everything at a late stage of my working life is hard to swallow. I would also mention that my wife is now being treated by the doctor for high blood pressure and will be taking pills for the rest of her life.”

He continued:

“The bank have now issued their formal demand for repayment of the overdraft, as have [Hickling Building Society]. It is now apparent that we face the distinct possibility of bankruptcy and homelessness, clearly avoidable had my home not been blighted by NCC proposals.”

He concluded:

“I believe [the County Council] should be made to purchase Swans Harbour.”

48. On 14 May 1992 the MEP wrote to the Minister for Roads and Traffic pressing Mr Balchin’s case. In his reply to the MEP of 2 July 1992 the Minister says:

“clearly Mr Balchin will need to pursue the question of compensation with the Council as he may at the very least be able to claim under Part One of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Given the somewhat exceptional circumstances one might hope that the Council would treat his situation with the utmost sympathy, not to mention urgency.”

49. The Minister sent a copy of his letter; of the MEP’s letter; and of Mr Balchin’s letter of 1 May 1992 to the Council’s then Chief Executive on 2 July 1992.

50. Officer C sent a copy of this correspondence to the County Surveyor on 6 July 1992, saying:

“I attach a copy of correspondence from the Department of Transport, the contents of which are self-explanatory. It raises again the question of the so called “Blighting” of Swans Harbour. I suspect that it will be necessary to review yet again the position of Swans Harbour to see whether there is anything that this authority are prepared to do in terms of this property. I have to say if that one is accepted then, of course, there will be pressure from others although the Inspector’s report did make specific reference to Swans Harbour and also to [another property]. Now that the report has come through and the other arrangements are now proceeding, I think it necessary that we readdress this issue if only to have a further decision from the members on this particular problem. You will see that the Minister for Roads and Traffic does indicate that we should look at this as a matter of urgency. No doubt, you will let me have your observations on this as soon as possible.”

51. Officer E, a Valuer, replied to Officer C on 8 July 1992. He observed that Swans Harbour was not statutorily blighted and any decision to buy should be made in the conscious knowledge that:

“a) There is no easy cut off point where no land is taken. We could justify one, two or half a dozen properties at £400,000 each. We have refused point blank to consider acquisition at the boundary where people were very severely affected.

b) These cases will always be quoted against us in other schemes.

c) If we purchase now on a discretionary basis, we will not get [grant] on the acquisition price and it would all count against our very limited capital budget.”

He went on to record that:

“in these circumstances I must say I find the Minister’s letter extremely misleading and at best disingenuous on two counts. He emphasises that it is all down to Norfolk County Council to make the decision but he clearly would be sympathetic. If he was involved there would clearly be no problem. He therefore makes no mention or allowance for the difficulties set out above, one of which at least he actually controls.”

52. Officer E also observed that the Minister’s reference to urgency, in respect of compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973, indicated that he and his civil servants “have clearly never read” Part 1 of the Act. He pointed out that the earliest he believed the Council could look at the claim was four years away (see paragraph 8).

53. Officer E concluded by observing that property prices had dropped in the area and as Mr Balchin already had £300,000 owing he probably had no equity in Swans Harbour at all. Officer C then went on to draft a reply to the Minister. The Chief Executive annotated the draft response:

“my belief is that we have from time to time exercised our discretion to acquire adversely affected property which falls outside the definition of that we are obliged to buy. If that is so, when do we and what are the particular reasons we have chosen not to in this case?”

It has not been possible to trace the properties he refers to, nor is there evidence of a reply to his questions.

54. The Chief Executive formally replied to the Minister on 16 July 1992:

“ Swans Harbour is not touched physically by the scheme. To concede this particular case and therefore undermine the legal principle will add to the costs not only of this scheme but of all road improvements/construction schemes not least the trunk road network run by your own Ministry!”

He says that:

“a line has to be drawn somewhere and Parliament has determined that line to be very tight to the “direct impact” concept: I suspect any other line would be impossible to set in legislative form and even more impossible to fund from the public purse.”

55. Officer F sent a memorandum to Officer C on 28 July 1992. He says that he believes that Officers C and D “appear to have dealt admirably with matters raised by the Minister and that he has nothing to add”. He does though propose to take a short item to the Highways Sub-Committee in September to “see these [matters] off”.

Back to top

Third Committee consideration

56. In the event, Mr Balchin’s position was reported to the Planning and Transportation Committee on 1 October 1992. The report makes no reference to the changes in the law (paragraph 11) or the DoT guidelines (paragraph 14) or to Mr Balchin’s letter of 1 May 1992 (paragraph 47) with the new information about his circumstances. In its comments on the factual part of my report the Council notes that Mr Balchin had not, at that particular point, again asked the Council to buy Swans Harbour.

57. I have extracted the relevant parts of the report at Appendix three. In addition, Members were given copies of the 1987 and 1990 reports (paragraphs 30 and 38 respectively). In its written comments on the factual part of my report the Council says that Mr Balchin’s circumstances were covered by the 1990 report and it was not then aware of any change in his circumstances.

58. The Committee accepted the recommendation to deal with compensation after the road was built and so not acquire Swans Harbour in advance. The Council’s present Director of Planning and Transportation told the Commission’s Officer that he clearly recalled the debate. Financial matters had been considered, as had Mr Balchin’s circumstances. But in the end, the key question had been “where to draw the line”. The Committee had decided on the logical one of the highway boundary. Officer A told the Commission’s Officer that he believed the Committee had evidence about Mr Balchin’s circumstances before it when it reached its decision. And he noted that the Committee was not being told it could not buy Swans Harbour; rather, Members recognised that they could buy it but chose not to do so.

Back to top

Events after the October 1992 Committee consideration

59. On 14 December 1992 Mr Balchin’s bank wrote to Officer A. It asked whether final approval had been given for the works to proceed with the road scheme and drew his attention to Section 246(2A) (see paragraph 11). It says:

“it is our understanding that Swans Harbour stands immediately adjacent to the site of the scheme: please confirm whether consideration has been given to an acquisition of the property on this basis.”

60. Officer A replied on 18 December 1992. He observed that objectors were judicially reviewing the Secretary of State’s decision to confirm the Council’s bypass proposal and it was unlikely that this would be heard until 1993. In addition the Council did not have grant approval. He said that the Council:

“have not, so far as I am aware, considered the acquisition of Swans Harbour [under S246(2A)]. The Planning and Transportation Committee have previously considered Mr Balchin’s request for an advance payment of compensation but rejected it. I therefore believe it would be most unlikely that the Council will be prepared to exercise their powers under [Section S246(2A)] in this case.”

61. Officer A told the Commission’s Officer that he could not recall what he had in mind and he did not understand why he had replied in this way. He may have been unaware of the detail of the report considered by Committee on 1 October 1992 (paragraphs 56 to 58). He had not regarded the letter as a formal request to purchase and so had not reported it to Members. He noted that neither the bank nor Mr Balchin had responded to his letter with a formal request to purchase.

62. Correspondence continued during 1993 with Mr Balchin’s Solicitors and Sir Michael Lord MP writing both to the Council and to Hickling Building Society. Sir Michael Lord MP wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive on 26 October 1993 to urge that the Council propose reparation to Mr Balchin for the damage it had done to his home, his business and his life.

63. Officer C replied on 1 November 1993 to say that the legislation did not require the Council to acquire land where no part of the land involved is taken for the bypass. He recorded that the Council:

“does have a discretion to purchase [the] property. The Council’s committees had considered this issue on a number of occasions and on each occasion had rejected the approach. The voting in those issues had neither been close nor on party lines. Mr Balchin and those representing him have set out his circumstances fully and the Members have taken those matters into consideration. I do not think the members of the relevant committee would want to consider the matter again.”

64. Sir Michael Lord MP wrote again on 2 November 1993 urging that the case be put before appropriate elected Members as a matter of urgency. The Chief Executive’s note on this letter records:

“you can send a more terse reply this time. Don’t agree to put it to Committee – say you will ask the Committee Chair”.

65. Officer C sent a copy of Sir Michael Lord MP’s letter to the Director of Planning and Transportation. His covering memorandum says:

“[The MP] seems to think we have a totally bottomless purse and does not seem to appreciate the public sector bill which would follow from indirect blight which may impact upon the saleability of properties in respect of road or other public sector projects.”

He offered to share the MP’s letter with the three party spokesmen if it was felt appropriate.

66. In the event he did this in a letter to the Committee Chairs of 13 November 1993. His letter says that:

“personally I do not think that the matter needs to be reopened again and that regrettably Mr Balchin is the subject of having over mortgaged his property to support various business activities and that he has suffered from the recession and the general fallback in house prices as well as having an indirect implication from the bypass route. You will be aware that we have acquired other properties which are directly affected and have spent £0.75 million plus on those properties. We do not receive transport supplementary grant for such purchases ahead of the approval of the scheme for those purposes.”

67. None of the Members thought the matter should go back to the Committee and Officer C wrote to Sir Michael Lord MP along those lines on 10 December 1993.

68. Sir Michael Lord MP then wrote directly to the Leaders of the political groups on 16 December 1993. He said that Mr Balchin:

“is asking them in the name of natural justice to look at this matter again. There is no doubt in my mind that the sole cause of Mr Balchin’s financial ruin is the action of Norfolk County Council. It cannot be too much to ask that even at this late stage further thought be given to his plight.”

Back to top

The Group Leaders’ meeting

69. It was decided that the issue should be raised at a Group Leaders’ meeting on 6 January 1994. The note of that meeting records that it was agreed that the Chief Executive would prepare a draft letter for the Leader of the Council to respond further to Sir Michael Lord MP on behalf of the Council; and that the matter should not go back to Committee because it had already been fully considered and rejected by all parties. The Chief Executive wrote to Sir Michael Lord MP on 10 January 1994. His letter concludes:

“The decision not to purchase Mr Balchin’s house was taken without dissent by agreement across all parties and they do not see any good and sufficient reason to raise the matter again.”

70. On 15 November 1995 an interested member of the public wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive to ask that the appropriate Committee be asked to pay compensation to Mr Balchin. Officer C replied on 23 November 1995. He told her that the

“matter had been looked at by the County Council several times and on each occasion the Members have (usually unanimously) determined that it is not a case where they would wish to exercise their discretion.”

He continued:

“having said that the County Council has been re-reviewing its policy and the criteria for exercising its discretion in the light of recent judicial pronouncements and if that causes us to rethink the case for Mr and Mrs Balchin then they will be informed accordingly.”

71. On 8 December 1995 Officer G wrote to Mr Balchin at his new address to indicate that, as a consequence of changes to the Coastal Protection Act Consent, it might now need to purchase his home as it might need to purchase land in his ownership to enlarge the riverside moorings. He wrote finally on 4 January 1996 to indicate that if the Council was now to go ahead with the scheme, it would have to purchase Swans Harbour. But this was subject to consideration of the road scheme’s future at a Committee meeting in February 1996. He wrote again on 22 February 1996 to indicate that the Council’s provisional view was that the bypass would not proceed. The scheme was formally abandoned in July 1996 (see paragraph 19).

72. Mr Balchin said that he finally sold his home on 15 May 1998. He was forced to sell it at very short notice by Hickling Building Society. The property had sold for £240,000. All this had gone to repay the mortgage with its attendant compounded arrears, agent’s fees and legal costs. A small amount of agent’s fees remained outstanding. The bank holding the overdraft received no payment as a consequence of the sale and had had to write off the money owing under the overdraft.

73. At interview, Mr Balchin said that Hickling Building Society had not initially been pressuring him to sell Swans Harbour because it knew his legal advice was that his legal proceedings (paragraph 20) had a good chance of success and that they would be paid off then. It was only when the Building Society formed the view that the legal action would not succeed that it decided that Swans Harbour should be sold. At the time of sale, Swans Harbour had been empty for some time. Although Swans Harbour had at that point only been built for about ten years the sale agent’s particulars say the property “merits further improvement and modernisation”.

Back to top

Mr Balchin’s solicitor’s general comments

74. In their written comments on the factual part of my report Mr Balchin’s solicitors say:

“We consider that it is worth stating in the factual part of the report that in April 1996 the Council were willing to purchase another property which had been indirectly affected by another scheme even though it did not fully meet the criteria for the exercise of their power.”

Mr and Mrs Balchin’s position in December 1992

75. Mr Balchin believed that had the Council purchased Swans Harbour at this point he could have resumed his business interests anew. He had experience in various areas of business and had been successful. All that was owing at that point would have been the domestic mortgage. In addition, the remains of the overdraft would have had to be repaid. But he believed that he could still have purchased a smaller property with the remaining money which could then have formed security for a new business overdraft enabling him to restart his business activities.

76. As part of my investigation I decided to ask the District Valuer to advise me of the value of Swans Harbour had it been sold to the Council on 1 December 1992. He valued the property at that date as being worth £300,000.

77. I have obtained a Hickling Building Society statement dated 31 January 1993. The statement shows that Mr Balchin owed £148,063 on mortgage on Swans Harbour as at 1 February 1992. After the addition of interest and an insurance premium the debt was £158,183 as at 31 January 1993.

78. In addition, I asked Mr Balchin’s former accountant to make an assessment of Mr Balchin’s debts and assets as at the same date based on his knowledge of Mr Balchin’s financial affairs and on whatever documentary evidence existed.

79. He has told me that after the bank froze Mr Balchin’s trading accounts it demanded repayment of £152,586 and agreed to accept the value of the commercial properties held by both companies, together with a further £100,000 to clear the indebtedness. This had been raised by increasing the mortgage debt on Swans Harbour. Both companies were subsequently dissolved. He also considered that at this time Mr Balchin had access to some £90,000 equity in antiques and a boat.

Back to top

The County Council’s comments on my draft Conclusions and Finding

80. In April 2005 I shared with the Council on a private basis my provisional Conclusions in respect of Mr Balchin’s complaint. The Council took legal advice on them and it has shown me the advice it received. In July 2005 I met the Council’s Chief Executive, the County Solicitor and Leaders of the Council’s party groups to discuss my draft Conclusions. I am very grateful for all the Council’s careful consideration here. I believe it genuinely reflects its willingness to do what it considers appropriate in putting right any adverse effects on Mr and Mrs Balchin that may have arisen as a result of its administrative fault.

81. The Council is not minded to dispute the generality of the maladministration I indicated in my draft conclusions. It does, though, believe that it is unsafe for me to conclude that the Council would have acquired Swans Harbour at the end of 1992, given that it retained discretion not to do so. It also considers that in reaching a view on appropriate compensation for Mr Balchin, significant regard should be had to

a) the risk he took in financing so much of his business activities by using Swans Harbour as security;

b) the fact that he could have reorganised his finances to permit the business to continue;

the fact that any deterioration in the property which might have affected the sale price at that time was as a result of his own choice in moving out and failing to maintain it.

the Guidelines adopted by the Council in 1995;

the fact that he received £240,000 for the property in the summer of 1998;

82. Accordingly, while accepting that some compensation is due to Mr Balchin, it has asked me to review my provisional Conclusions in the light of its representations.

83. I have reflected on all these points before producing my final recommendation for the Council’s consideration.

Back to top

Conclusions

84. No one can help sympathising with Mr Balchin for the invidious position in which he found himself once the Council had determined that the line of a bypass should immediately adjoin the boundary of his property. Had the bypass required any of his property for its construction then the Council would have bought his home at full market value and the security for his successful business would have been safe. But because the line of the road fell outside his boundary, the law at that time gave the Council no specific power to acquire his property or compensate him in advance of the road having been built and having been in operation for a year.

85. Once the line of the new road became public knowledge the value of Swans Harbour fell away. On the Council’s own estimate of December 1987 the value had declined by around 50%. And in 1990 a sale fell through as soon as the existence of the bypass was discovered by the purchaser. Mr Balchin made his position clear to the Council almost at the outset. In 1987 he explained his financial and business difficulties to the Council and asked it to buy Swans Harbour at full market value so that he could recover his equity in it. In December 1987 the Council declined, and in June 1990 it declined again, even though by this time Mr Balchin’s financial circumstances were such that it proved impossible for him to raise any more borrowing on the depleted market value of Swans Harbour. He had also ceased trading as a builder.

86. It is important to recognise that Mr Balchin was in a desperate position long before the critical events of October 1992, which I discuss below, had occurred. A complaint was made of maladministration following the Council’s refusal to purchase Swans Harbour in June 1990. But my predecessor rejected that complaint on 31 May 1991, giving Mr Balchin reasons. Accordingly, up to that time, I cannot say there was maladministration in the way the Council had responded to Mr Balchin’s request for assistance.

87. But when the Council came to consider the matter again in October 1992 a number of changes had occurred in the previous two years that significantly affected Mr Balchin’s position. First, an addition to the Highways Act 1980 (paragraph 11), in force from September 1991, gave the Council the power to acquire property in advance of a road scheme where it would be seriously affected by construction work or the use of the road, and where purchasing the property would alleviate hardship. This new power seemed almost designed to meet the circumstances in which Mr and Mrs Balchin found themselves. Second, guidelines had been set out by the Department of Transport in January 1992 which indicated where the Department would be minded to exercise its discretion in favour of potential applicants. Again, those guidelines incorporated qualifying criteria which Mr and Mrs Balchin’s circumstances substantially met. Third, the Secretary of State’s Inspector had reported in some detail, when confirming the road scheme, on the effect it would have on Swans Harbour, and advised the Council to give sympathetic consideration to urgent compensation for Mr Balchin. Fourth, the Minister for Roads and Traffic had copied to the Council correspondence with Mr Balchin’s MEP showing Ministerial sympathy with Mr Balchin’s plight. The letter could have been more precise as to the Council’s powers, but it also ended by exhorting the Council to treat Mr Balchin’s “situation with the utmost sympathy, not to mention urgency.” Fifth, Mr Balchin’s hardship had worsened over the previous two years; he was now in rented property and his and his wife’s health had suffered through stress and worry. This information, too, had been passed to the Council by the Minister.

88. There were serious shortcomings in reporting these new matters to Members at the meeting of October 1992. The officers’ report did not mention the new power under the Highways Act at all: indeed, it appears from the Chief Executive’s letter to the Minister of 16 July 1992, that he did not know of the new power. Consequently the Department of Transport Guidelines were not mentioned either. Nor was the letter from the Minister of Roads and Traffic referred to. The Inspector’s views were reported but without telling Members just what the Inspector had asked them to do. And there was no up-to-date appraisal of Mr Balchin’s continuing and worsening hardship, so relevant to the Council’s consideration of whether it should apply its new powers in any particular circumstances. The new information about the family’s worsening financial situation and Mrs Balchin’s health was simply not given to Members. The absence of these highly relevant considerations from the report submitted to Members in October 1992 was maladministration.

89. In addition, and compounding these faults, Members were provided with advice previously offered them by officers in December 1987 and June 1990. The advice in the latter report included the paragraph on “Precedent” that was underlined in its “Conclusion”. This argued that exercising a discretion in favour of Mr Balchin would encourage others in potentially similar situations also to make claims. It seems to me that, in considering whether to exercise a discretionary power, generalised concerns that doing so for one applicant may lead to claims from another have no place. That is a reason never to exercise any discretionary power the Council might have in favour of any individual. In fact, of course, the Council has to be in a position to have full regard to individual circumstances and to respond accordingly. This advice effectively deterred Members from giving any proper consideration to Mr Balchin’s true circumstances. It fettered the Council’s discretion, and that was maladministration.

90. It seems too that at the debate at Committee, Members may have misled themselves further, along the lines of the Chief Executive’s misunderstanding of the current state of the law. The evidence of the debate (paragraph 58) is compelling. The decision on “where to draw the line” on properties to be acquired was to draw it along the highway boundary. But any person owning property within the highway boundary could already serve a blight notice and so oblige the Council to buy him out. And where a blight notice was accepted, the person would also get a home loss payment, surveyor’s fees and removal costs. No one who could serve a blight notice would instead sensibly ask the Council to make a less favourable discretionary purchase. And so for a discretionary purchase to take place it had to be outside the highway boundary and not within it. It was maladministration for the Council to allow this irrelevant consideration to be taken into account.

91. These failings in reporting Mr Balchin’s position to Members in October 1992 were fatal. They vitiated the decision not to offer any assistance in advance of the road having been built and in use for a year.

92. But what decision would have been made in the absence of the maladministration I have identified? After all, the Council did retain a discretion here. It is, clearly, possible that the Council might have found good reason not to use its discretion in Mr Balchin’s favour. It might, for instance, have wanted to help but not be able to afford to do so. There were no doubt competing financial demands on the Council’s roads and transport budget, though this in itself (apart from the ‘precedent’ point) was not specifically held up as a bar preventing the Council acceding to Mr Balchin’s ‘demand’ that the Council buy Swans Harbour; and I note that some purchases along the line of the scheme were made without the necessity of serving blight notices first (paragraph 15).

93. There would, though, have to be good reason not to use its powers, I think, because here was a case that matched precisely the new powers the Council had been given. The line of the road had drastically devalued Swans Harbour and rendered it practically un-saleable; the devaluation had caused Mr Balchin catastrophic financial difficulties; his financial difficulties were taking a toll on Mrs Balchin’s mental and physical health. No Council could set these considerations lightly to one side and successfully defend itself against the charge of ‘intransigence’ (see paragraph 20), of setting its face against assisting Mr and Mrs Balchin whatever the circumstances of their case.

94. Of course, these circumstances were not considered properly at all. And the reasons put forward by the Council for not purchasing the property, at the end of 1992 and subsequently, were all flawed by the failure to have regard to relevant considerations and by the impact of irrelevant matters. On the face of it, there was no good reason not to accede to Mr Balchin’s request to buy Swans Harbour.

95. So, on balance, and while acknowledging that there must be another possibility, I conclude that the Council could not reasonably have refused to buy Swans Harbour had the matter been considered properly – as it should have been – in October 1992. I have accordingly chosen the notional date of 1 December 1992 on which to base a reconstruction of Mr and Mrs Balchin’s financial circumstances to assess how the purchase of Swans Harbour by the Council at that time would probably have affected them.

96. I have found it impossible precisely to reconstruct his financial position as at December 1992. I have established that £150,000 was owed on mortgage and that would have had to be redeemed. It is clear that one or more overdrafts were secured against Swans Harbour but, on balance, I accept the view of Mr Balchin’s accountant that Mr Balchin had available some resources that could have offset the overdraft to some extent. And it seems reasonable to assume that the remainder could have been accommodated or extended had Mr Balchin come away from the sale with significant equity capable of investment in property as security for building another business. So I conclude that in December 1992 Mr Balchin lost access to £150,000 that he should have had from the Council’s purchase of his home.

97. I have considered carefully how the question of interest should apply to this sum. It is 13 years since Mr Balchin was deprived of money that in my view he should have had. And it is some seven years since he sold Swans Harbour, by which time however it was more encumbered with debt than in 1992. So there are arguments that interest should accrue from 1992 either until 1998, when the house was sold, or to date, when I have concluded that restitution was long overdue.

98. On balance, however, I believe that interest should run from December 1992 to July 1996, when the Council abandoned the road scheme and when Mr Balchin was in a position to take advantage of the fact and sell the property. In taking this as a proportionate cut-off point I bear in mind that Mr Balchin was in serious financial difficulties before the maladministration occurred; that he might have pursued a complaint against the Council with the Local Government Ombudsman after the Council’s decision in October 1992 to offer him no assistance; and that the precise nature of his financial difficulties in December 1992 remain obscure. Letting interest run to 2005 in these circumstances would, I believe be disproportionately onerous on the Council’s purse.

99. On the other hand, there were opportunities during the period from October 1992 until early 1996 for the Council to put things right, and really it should have done. So I conclude that Mr Balchin is due £150,000 plus 44 months’ interest at the County Court rate, a total of some £194,000. I also believe that some recognition needs to be given to the effect of the Council’s maladministration on the lives of Mr Balchin and his wife. I believe that proportionate acknowledgement of the stress and anxiety caused by the decision of October 1992, and the failure over some four years to put it right, is appropriately reflected by raising the total compensation to be paid to £200,000.

100. I have carefully considered the points the Council raises over Swans Harbour and Mr Balchin’s financial circumstances. I should stress that my calculations cannot be exact. But I believe that they provide a fair and reasonable basis on which to make a recommendation to the Council. And I do not feel that the Council’s concerns should lead me to abate the sum I was minded to recommend in April 2005.

101. I say this for a number of reasons. First, I accept that, as a businessman, there may have been other courses open to Mr Balchin than putting so many of his eggs in the Swans Harbour basket. But I have seen no evidence at all of culpable imprudence in that regard that would lead me to believe he was the architect of his own misfortune here. Indeed, I do not believe he was. Second, I do not accept that Mr Balchin’s business could have recommenced trading had he reorganised his finances. The major part of his net assets was the value of Swans Harbour which, as an effectively blighted property, was probably unsaleable at the time. Third, the property appears to have been in better condition in 1992, and so a purchase then would have been more beneficial financially than later on. The Council says that Mr and Mrs Balchin contributed to this deterioration by moving out and failing to maintain it. But, in all the circumstances, I find it hard to blame Mr and Mrs Balchin here. Mr Balchin says the move away was to safeguard the mental wellbeing of Mrs Balchin and was on her doctor’s advice. The move itself was to their financial disadvantage and it is hard to see why it would have taken place without pressing health reasons. So I think it unfair to reduce for this reason the sum I recommended. Fourth, I consider it is not appropriate to take into account the Guidelines adopted by the Council in 1995. The only contemporaneous published Guidelines relevant to Mr Balchin’s circumstances were those established by the DoT in 1992 and I cannot reasonably assume that the Council would have applied guidelines which were not adopted until some three years after the event. Fifth, Mr Balchin did indeed receive £240,000 for the property once sold in 1998. But by then it was virtually totally encumbered by mortgage debt and he retrieved no equity from the sale. And I believe that the worsening of his financial position from the end of 1992 until at least July 1996 (see paragraph 18) was a direct consequence of the Council’s failure to acquire the property at the appropriate time.

102. The final question I need to consider is who should pay? Mr Balchin has been complaining for 11 years to the Parliamentary Ombudsman about the role of the Secretary of State for Transport in the events that have caused him so much hardship. The Parliamentary Ombudsman and I have shared the results of our separate investigations, as the law says we can, and have considered jointly what an equitable share of responsibility might be. We have decided that it would only be fair to conclude that the Council and the Department for Transport must carry an equal share in that responsibility. I should make it quite clear that this is not to say that the Council was not, in law, the appropriate decision-making body in this matter. However, in her report the Parliamentary Ombudsman reached the view that there must be, nevertheless, an onus on the Department for Transport to ensure that they do not knowingly allow Councils to mislead themselves as to the intention of any legislation (for which the Department is responsible) to which they are obliged to have regard, and certainly to step in to offer a correct interpretation of the current legislative position if a Council clearly misrepresents that. In this instance, had the Department for Transport fulfilled that responsibility, they would have replied appropriately to the Chief Executive’s letter to the Minister of 16 July 1992. As I see it, that response, pointing out the Council’s clear misinterpretation of the true legislative position and the self-evident fettering of its discretion, should have been sufficient to have prompted proper consideration of the case by the Council. As I have already explained, it is my view that had the Council done so, it would have exercised its discretion to purchase Mr Balchin’s property.

Back to top

Finding

103. For the reasons given in paragraphs 88 to 90 I find maladministration by the Council causing the injustice described in paragraphs 96 to 99.

104. To remedy that injustice I recommend that the Council make Mr Balchin an ex gratia payment of £100,000.

J R White

Local Government Ombudsman

Coventry

Notes

1. Local Government Act 1974.

2. (A) level with the peaks and troughs levelled out over a stated period, in this case 12 hours. So the average of the total sound measured over a 12 hour period (usually 7.00am to 7.00pm) would need to be above 78dB(A). Typical noise levels are 35 dB(A) in a quiet bedroom, 60 dB(A) in an office environment, 70 dB(A) from a car travelling at 60 kilometres per hour (kph) at a distance of 7 metres, and 83dB(A) from a heavy diesel lorry travelling at 40 kph at a distance of 7 metres.

Back to top