Bristol City Council (21 005 378)

Category : Planning > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 11 Apr 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr F complains that the Council failed to include advice about residents parking within planning decisions on a property he is developing. We found there was fault by the Council but this did not cause injustice to Mr F.

The complaint

  1. Mr F complains that the Council failed to include advice about residents parking within planning decisions on a property he is developing and did not follow its procedures on implementing parking restrictions. As a result, the property has been deemed ineligible for parking permits reducing its value. Mr F says he would not have purchased the property if he had known parking would not have been permitted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. 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

  1. I considered the information Mr F sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
  2. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Residents’ parking schemes

  1. If a council wants to create a residents’ parking scheme it must make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The council must follow the procedures set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Local Authorities Traffic Order Regulations 1996. These say the council must publish its proposed TRO in a local newspaper and take what other steps it considers appropriate to publicise its proposal.

Planning law and guidance

  1. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not. Planning considerations include things like access to the highway and the impact on neighbouring amenity. They do not include things like the impact of development on property value.
  2. Planning applications can be made to vary a condition on an existing planning permission. When determining such an application the local planning authority can grant the application, i.e. remove or vary the condition as requested, refuse the application or impose different conditions to those imposed on the original grant of permission. In deciding an application the local planning authority must only consider the disputed condition/s that are the subject of the application – it is not a complete re-consideration of the application.

Informatives

  1. The National Planning Practice Guidance says informative notes (also known as planning advice) may be attached to planning decisions to draw an applicant’s attention to other relevant matters, for example the requirement to seek additional consents under other regimes.
  2. Informative notes do not carry any legal weight and cannot be used in lieu of planning conditions or a legal obligation to try and ensure adequate means of control for planning purposes. Councils therefore cannot take enforcement action under an informative as they could against a breach of planning condition.

Bristol’s residents’ parking scheme and car free properties

  1. Bristol has a residents’ parking scheme which requires residents to apply for permits. In April 2017 the Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport approved a policy which said future developments (i.e. new dwellings) in the parking scheme’s area would not be eligible for parking permits. Information about this policy is on the Council’s website.
  2. The Council published a TRO which came into force on 4 June 2018. This said no parking permit would be issued to any resident of a premises “required by the Council to be a car free/low car development”. The order says that prior to purchasing or renting any residential premises, residents should make their own enquiries to establish whether the premises are car free.
  3. The Council’s process is that if a planning decision has determined a property is car free or low car, an informative should be attached to the decision. This notifies the Council’s parking services that the property would not be eligible for a permit under the parking policy. Parking services then adds the property to a spreadsheet, and they are shown on a map available on the Council's website. The informative would be picked up when any property searches are undertaken.
  4. The Council has information about its parking permit policy on its website. This says there are restrictions on parking permits for car free developments. It defines “car free” as those developments where there was not enough space for parking on the highway when planning permission was granted and refers residents to check the map and spreadsheet.

What happened

  1. In 2019 the Council granted planning permission to demolish a property in the residents’ parking scheme area and build a new dwelling in its place. The planning report says “the proposed (new dwelling) … doesn’t comprise any plans to provide additional parking due to the site layout.” This was found to be acceptable in planning terms as it did not conflict with the Council’s development plan which says developments should not impact on traffic and should promote sustainable travel. No informative was attached to the decision.
  2. Mr F purchased the property with the permission in place in 2020. He applied to vary a condition of the permission. This variation was granted in June 2020. No informative about the parking permit policy was attached.
  3. Mr F then submitted a new planning application about the new dwelling. This was granted in April 2021. The decision notice included the informative which said:

“You are advised that the Local Planning Authority has recommended to the Highways Authority which administers the existing Controlled Parking Zone/Residents Parking Scheme of which the development forms part that the development shall be treated as car free / low-car and the occupiers are ineligible for resident parking permits as well as visitors parking permits if in a Residents Parking Scheme.”

  1. When Mr F queried this, the Council said the informative should have been attached to the 2019 and 2020 planning permission. It apologised for the error.

Mr F’s complaint

  1. Mr F complained to the Council in May 2021. He said he had purchased the property with the 2019 permission with the intention of onward sale. Had he known the new dwelling would not be eligible for a parking permit he would not have bought it. Mr F said his legal searches had not found the property was ineligible for parking permits.
  2. The Council’s response apologised that the informative had not been attached to the previous permission but said residents of the new dwelling would not be entitled to permits.
  3. Mr F asked for his complaint to be escalated. The Council’s final response said the development plan said that new dwellings (in the residents’ parking scheme area) would not be eligible for parking permits. Mr F complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

  1. There is a lack of clarity in the correspondence I have seen and on the Council’s website about the role of the informative. The website says planners “will attach [an informative] that means residents can’t get a parking permit.” But this is not correct; an informative carries no legal weight and only advises an applicant about a matter. It is not the informative in itself that determines a property is not eligible for a parking permit, but the Council’s decision that a property is “car free”. In other words, a new property in the scheme area would not be eligible for a parking permit even if no informative was attached to the planning permission.
  2. The Council says the car free decision is taken by planning based on the development plan, but I have not found this. The development plan is silent on the issue of parking permits and new dwellings. It says only that new developments should not adversely impact on traffic and sets maximum parking space provision.
  3. The Council’s policy that new dwellings in the residents’ parking scheme area would not be eligible for permits is a parking, rather than planning, policy. It was agreed by the Cabinet Member in 2017 and implemented through the 2018 TRO. I have reviewed the Cabinet Member’s decision and the TRO and have seen no evidence of fault in the way these were made. The Council is therefore entitled to decide that a new dwelling is not eligible for a parking permit.
  4. The Council attaches an informative to planning permission granted to new dwellings in the scheme’s area. This advises applicants of the Council’s parking permit policy and alerts the parking team that the property will not be eligible for a permit. It also means that the lack of eligibility will appear in legal searches.
  5. In Mr F’s case no informative was attached to the 2019 planning permission or to the 2020 approval to vary a condition. Although there is no legal requirement for an informative to be attached to a planning decision, I find this was fault, given the role the informative plays in the Council’s parking policy.
  6. I have carefully considered the impact of this fault on Mr F. The lack of an informative did not mean that Mr F’s new property was eligible for a parking permit; under the Council’s policy it is not. It did make it more difficult for him to be aware that the new dwelling would not be eligible for a permit as it had not shown up in the searches.
  7. In response to my draft decision, Mr F said it was not possible for him to know his new property would not be eligible as it was not on the spreadsheet and the policy was not set out clearly on the Council’s website.
  8. However, I consider it was Mr F’s responsibility to be aware of and check the parking policy before he purchased the property. I also note that any new dwelling Mr F had built in the area would not have been eligible for a permit. So any injustice caused by an unclear website is not the loss of a parking permit. Mr F says he would not have bought the property if he had known. But the Council was not responsible for Mr F’s purchase and it was for Mr F to take on the risks of a development. I therefore find that the fault did not cause injustice to Mr F.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault by the Council, but this did not cause injustice to Mr F. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings