Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. Nor will we be able to add to its own investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained about Bath and North East Somerset Council’s handling of a planning application. He said it failed to attach a pre-commencement condition when it approved an application to demolish a building next door to his home and to erect a replacement. Mr Q said the building has been demolished and nothing built in its place and, as a result, his property has been devalued.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided, including its Stage 2 complaint review. I considered Mr Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. Councils may attach pre-commencement conditions when granting planning permission. Pre-commencement conditions must be fulfilled before work starts on site or before the use of land changes.
5. Government guidance advises councils to take care when using pre-commencement conditions. It says they “…should only be used where there is a clear justification, which is likely to mean that the requirements of the condition (including the timing of compliance) are so fundamental to the development permitted that it would otherwise be necessary to refuse the whole permission”.

What happened

6. Mr Q lives in a conservation area.
7. In 2018 the Council’s Planning Committee approved a planning application to demolish the building next to Mr Q’s home and to erect a replacement building.
8. In 2019 the owners of the building demolished it. But they have not erected a replacement building. In 2020 Mr Q complained to the Council. He said it should have attached a pre-commencement condition to the planning permission saying demolition could not go ahead without a valid contract for the redevelopment of the site. Mr Q said this was a policy - Policy CP6 - in the Council’s Local Plan to protect conservation areas. He referred to two other planning permissions which had this pre-commencement condition attached.
9. The Council responded to Mr Q’s complaint. Among other things it said

• there was no local or national policy guidance requiring it to attach the pre-commencement condition he referred to;
• it explained Government guidance regarding pre-commencement conditions;
• it considered planning applications on a case by case basis;
• it was not its standard practice to include the pre-commencement condition Mr Q wanted, and the Planning Committee did not apply it in this case;
• it was not appropriate to attach the pre-commencement condition in this case;
• it explained when it might be appropriate to attach the pre-commencement condition;
• it had visited the site and did not consider action using its other powers was needed at that point.

10. Mr Q complained to us later in 2020. He reiterated his view that the Council should have attached a pre-commencement condition to the planning permission. And he said he was now living next to a dangerous and unattractive site which had devalued his property and made it unsaleable.
11. In response to the draft decision, Mr Q repeated his view that Policy CP6 required the Council to attach the pre-commencement condition he wanted. He said Policy CP6 is a statement which does not say how it should be actioned. Mr Q also said he had challenged everything the Council said in paragraph 9 above. He said the Council had never explained to him why it had not attached the pre-commencement condition. And he also said he had reported the condition of the site to the Council several times but no one had visited or taken any action.

Analysis

12. We will not investigate this complaint.
13. Policy CP6 in the Council’s Local Plan does not require it to attach the pre-commencement condition Mr Q wanted. I recognise the Policy may not specify how it should be actioned. I also recognise Mr Q’s interpretation of the Policy means that, in his view, the Council must attach the pre-commencement condition. However, I cannot agree with Mr Q’s interpretation of the Policy: it does not say, or require, what he believes.
14. In support of his view, Mr Q provided evidence of planning permissions where the Council did attach the pre-commencement condition. This is not evidence that the Council must attach the pre-commencement condition. And there are no doubt other planning permissions where it did not do so.
15. Mr Q does not accept the Council explained why it did not attach the pre-commencement condition to the application he complained of. I do not agree. I have read the complaint correspondence. In my view, the Council’s Stage 2 complaint review thoroughly explained why the pre-commencement condition would not be appropriate in this case.
16. In summary, therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council for the reasons above. Nor is an investigation by us likely to add anything to the Council’s own investigation.
17. Mr Q says he has reported the condition of the site to the Council and it has not visited or taken action. Mr Q’s complaint to the Council was only about the pre-commencement condition. So, if he believes the Council has failed to act regarding the condition of the site, it is open to him to complain to it about its failure to act. If he remains dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint response he may make a new complaint to us.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman