Summary: Mr D says the Council has incorrectly approved parking for a housing scheme near his home. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council has wrongly approved a Discharge of Conditions for a parking scheme near his home. He says the parking spaces, if built, will block his views and are potentially unsafe.

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, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information provided by Mr D.
4. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. The Council granted planning permission for housing with parking in 2017. Part of the planning approval required the developer to comply with planning conditions including a pre-commencement condition for parking facilities.
6. In 2020 a Planning Officer at the Council considered and approved the Discharge of Conditions for the parking at the site. Mr D subsequently complained to the Council. He felt the case should have been put to the Planning Committee to consider. He also said the parking would potentially be unsafe for children playing in the area and would block his views of the landscape. The Council set out that no “call in” had been made for the Discharge of Conditions and it handled matters correctly. Under its policy the decision was for an Officer not the Planning Committee.

What should have happened

7. Where a council grants planning permission it can attach conditions which need to be fulfilled. A pre-commencement condition means a developer should provide details of the how the condition will be met before works start at the site. A Planning Officer will consider that information to determine if the requirements of the condition are met. The Council cannot review the merits of the planning application as that has already been considered when planning permission was granted.
8. Discharge of Conditions are considered by a Planning Officer. They are not referred to the Planning Committee usually, but a Councillor can request a “call in” for the Committee to look at the case.

Reasons for my decision

9. The Council’s complaints responses to Mr D correctly set out its administrative processes regarding a Discharge of Conditions. Given the Council has already explained the procedure and how it looked at this case I do not see that further investigation is warranted. That is because additional investigation would be unlikely to find fault or add to the Council’s response and investigation. In addition, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as we cannot require the Council ask the developer to submit a new planning application for the parking nor can the Ombudsman reconsider the merits of the parking scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I have discontinued the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman