Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly discharged a planning condition despite incomplete information being submitted. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice and he can take the matter up with his local councillor or MP.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly discharged a planning condition on travel and congestion at a local school despite the school giving incomplete information in its travel plan.
2. There are three elements to Mr X’s complaint:
• The school failed to comply with a planning condition.
• The Council failed to monitor the planning condition and the school’s travel plan.
• The Council failed to review the impact of the planning condition on its air quality action plan.
3. Mr X, who is a coach driver, said he received verbal complaints from the school on several occasions about his coach blocking traffic. He also believes there are wider public interest issues about sustainable transport and air quality.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, including his complaint correspondence with the Council.
• Information about the planning and discharge of condition applications on the Council’s planning database.
7. Mr X and the Council both had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and I considered their comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. A school put in a planning application to the District Council in 2015 for a new teaching block. The District Council consulted with the highways department at the County Council, which said:

“A number of pupils currently come to the school by bus, which will continue to be the case, and the additional information states that senior staff at the school co‑ordinate the buses and pick-up and drop-off time, with many coming at different times as they also do pick up/drop offs at other schools as part of their route. The applicant has stated that the increase in pupil numbers will not result in a problem with buses queueing and struggling to get into the site, however colleagues in Public Transport have reported there are problems at this location with coaches and buses entering the site, also the additional number of pupils will be likely to place additional demands on the existing public transport network.”

9. The District Council approved the application in 2016. The following condition was attached to the planning permission:

“The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a Travel to School Plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The plan shall include a full analysis of the existing modal split for staff and pupils at the school, reasons for the modal choice and detailed proposals for future transport provision with the aim of securing reduction in car trips generated to and from the school. The Travel Plan must be submitted annually for review.

REASON: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and to encourage active, safe and sustainable travel, in accordance with advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.

10. The development came into use, but Mr X discovered the school had not sent a Travel to School Plan to the Council. This meant the planning condition had not been discharged and the development should not have come into use. Mr X brought this to the Council’s attention.
11. Following intervention by the Council’s enforcement team, the school put in a discharge of condition application in late 2019. This was later approved.
12. Mr X said the information the school gave did not include the required modal shift analysis. He accused the Council of failing to manage the planning condition and failing to ensure the school’s Travel to School Plan accords with its Air Quality Action Plan.
13. Mr X also said he wrote at length with the school, County Council and District Council about issues of child safety and blocked access to emergency services.
14. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 February 2020. He wanted full compliance with the planning condition, which is for the school to send an annual travel plan with a full modal split analysis.
15. The Council sent its final response to Mr X’s complaint on 19 February 2020. It confirmed its planning department consults technical bodies to ensure it reaches a proper decision. In this case it consulted the Buckinghamshire County Council Highways Development Management Team (BCCHDMT). The Council later placed conditions on the planning permission in line with recommendations it received from BCCHDMT. The Council then asked BCCHDMT to review the Travel to School Plan the school sent. The Council decided to discharge the condition with BCCHDMT advice in mind. The Council said, although Mr X may disagree, its decision was reasonable in planning terms. It said Mr X could discuss his concerns with BCCHDMT if he wished.
16. The Council also told Mr X, while it does check the discharge of conditions, it is not possible to do so for all applications it deals with. Where it receives information about a breach, its enforcement team will take action, as it did in this case. The school must send a Travel to School Plan each year for review. At this point the Council will take technical advice again before a decision is made.

Analysis

17. The school’s failure to send its Travel to School Plan is the fault of the school, not the Council. The Council has a planning enforcement team to deal with instances where applicants do not comply with planning conditions. Once it learned of the breach, the Council took action and required the school to send a Travel to School Plan. Mr X considers the Council failed to properly check or manage the planning condition. However, I would not expect the Council to check the conditions it places on each and every planning application it approves. It is enough to have an enforcement team who will act when breaches occur.
18. In any event, I do not consider this led to a significant personal injustice to Mr X. While he may have experienced verbal complaints from the school about parking his coach and blocking access, this is something he can raise with his employer. I have not seen evidence this is a direct result of the lack of an approved Travel to School Plan, or indeed the result of a Travel to School Plan which does not accord with Council policy. Mr X is the employee of a coach company, who are aware of the problem. This is an issue to be resolved between the school and bus company.
19. The information the Council gathered from the highways department suggested the issue of congestion with coaches and buses was already the case before the application was approved. I have not seen evidence to say the situation would be different if the Travel to School Plan had been sent on time and to Mr X’s satisfaction.
20. The fact Mr X thinks the school’s Travel to School Plan may not accord with the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan, and the implications for sustainable transport and air quality, is not a personal injustice to Mr X. As Mr X rightly pointed out, this is a wider policy issue. It is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to dictate council policy. This is a matter which Mr X can take up with his local councillor or MP.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice and he can take the matter up with his local councillor or MP.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman