Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged the Council did not act on alleged breaches of planning conditions at a development close to the complainant’s home.

The complaint

1. Mr x says the Council did not act on alleged breaches of planning conditions at a development close to his home. Mr X says a condition of a planning permission the Council granted in 2014 required the applicant to provide 30 car parking spaces but then granted planning permission for another development in 2015 which led to the loss of two of the car parking spaces.
2. Mr X says the 2014 planning permission also included a condition which required a segregated pedestrian access to the development site. When creating the entrance required by the condition, the developer also created a pavement or footway for pedestrians. This was approved by the Council when it discharged the condition. But since then the developer has reduced the pavement when proposing further development. Mr X says the Council did not act to prevent the loss of the pavement.
3. Mr X complains that the Council granted planning permission for a development which was markedly higher than those in the vicinity and so was contrary to its local plan policies.
4. Mr X also complains that another condition of the 2014 planning permission made provision for permanent nesting sites for swifts. Mr X says the condition was discharged because the Council’s ecologist was satisfied with the boxes installed by the developer. However, he considers the boxes are not suitable homes for swifts or swallows.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I reviewed the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and considered Mr X’s comments in reply.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. The Council granted planning permission in 2014 for a major mixed use development comprising retail, office units and 17 apartments. It included a condition that required the developer provide 30 car parking spaces within the development.
9. Another condition of the 2014 planning permission was the creation of a separate pedestrian entrance to the development. The details of the pedestrian access were to be provided to the Council for discharge of the condition at a later stage.
10. In 2015, the Council considered an application for the erection of eight apartments on land adjoining the previous development. But the developer proposed the loss of three of the car parking spaces. The Council approved the proposal.
11. Mr X now complains about the loss of the two car parking spaces as well as a gradual reduction of the pavement which the developer built when discharging one of the conditions of the 2014 permission. Mr X also says the Council approved a development which was contrary to its local plan policies on height.
12. In response to Mr X’s complaints the Council said the following:
• The 2015 application addressed the loss of three car parking spaces by making provision for 5 visitor parking bays in a different area. So, the highways team was satisfied the proposal was acceptable
• The developer provided a drawing to discharge the condition in the 2014 permission concerning the pedestrian access. The drawing showed a length of footpath across the front of the retail units. Officers discharged the condition because the pedestrian access was provided. However, there was no requirement in the condition that a footpath should have been created.
• Mr X did not raise the issue of the height of a development until the final stage of its complaints process nor had he raised the matter with the planning department beforehand. It was therefore premature and had to be raised with the planning department first.

Finding

13. I do not find fault by the Council with regard to its enforcement of the planning conditions. The condition relating to car parking spaces was still met even though the 2015 application varied the location of the car parking spaces.
14. The condition relating to the pedestrian access simply required the creation of a pedestrian access point. It did not stipulate the creation of a footway or pavement. So, while I note Mr X’s concern the developer has removed sections of the pavement, the wording of the condition is clear that the access was to be created and nothing further. The Council cannot now take enforcement for breach of the condition because the developer removed sections of the pavement leading to the pedestrian access.
15. As to Mr X’s complaint about the height of a building granted planning permission, it is now for Mr X to raise the matter with the planning department if he remains of the view there was a failing by planners. Mr X may then complain to the Council formally if he is dissatisfied with the response he receives from the planning department.
16. I note Mr X disagrees with the judgement of the Council’s ecologist on the boxes for swifts. But I do not find fault by the Council because Mr X disagrees with the judgement of the officer. I also do not find Mr X suffered a personal injustice in this matter that warrants further consideration of this point by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman