Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council, in approving signage for a car park, failed to take account of its Public Sector Equality Duty to ensure the signs were accessible to disabled people. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) in approving a planning application for a car park and signage, failed to take account of the needs of disabled users of the car park in accordance with its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). This meant Mrs B was unable to establish the terms and conditions when she parked in the car park and received a PCN as a result.

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’. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs B 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

Control of Advertisements

5. The display of advertisements is subject to a separate consent process within the planning system, set out in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Advertisements are controlled with reference to their effect on amenity and public safety only, so the regime is lighter touch than the system for obtaining planning permission for development.
6. Unless the nature of the advertisement is in itself harmful to amenity or public safety, consent cannot be refused because the local planning authority considers the advertisement to be unnecessary or offensive to public morals
7. In practice, “amenity” is usually understood to mean the effect on visual and aural amenity in the immediate neighbourhood of an advertisement or site for the display of advertisements, where residents or passers-by will be aware of the advertisement.
8. So, in assessing amenity, the local planning authority would always consider the local characteristics of the neighbourhood: for example, if the locality where the advertisement is to be displayed has important scenic, historic, architectural or cultural features, the local planning authority would consider whether it is in scale and in keeping with these features.

Public sector equality duty

9. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
10. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

11. Mrs B uses a wheelchair. A private company took over the operation of a car park at a site in the borough, near a listed building. In 2021 the operator applied for planning permission, listed building consent and advertisement approval for an automatic number plate recognition management system at the car park including associated signage.
12. The Council determined all three applications and granted approval. It required the operator to reduce the signs displaying the terms and conditions on lampposts from five to three to improve the visual impact on the listed building. The lampposts were situated behind the non-disabled parking bays. The disabled parking bays were next to the listed building, opposite the non-disabled spaces. The Council also approved a sign on a lamppost at the car-park entrance displaying terms and conditions and a tariff board next to the pay and display machine on an accessible area at the other end of the car park. The operator provided examples of the size of the signs with the planning application. These images included some examples of the text that would be used.
13. The car park operator took over in March 2022. In April 2022 Mrs B used the car park. She was not aware that blue-badge holders were required to pay to park (which was not the policy in council-run car parks). She could not read the signs showing the terms and conditions as they were at the back of bays with cars parked in them and neither the entrance sign nor the pay and display sign contained the information she needed. She displayed her blue badge but did not pay for a ticket and received a penalty charge notice for £100.
14. Mrs B complained to the Council, the car park operator and the owner of the adjacent site about the lack of accessible signs. The Council said the responsibility for the signs lay with the operator and the operator said the Council had not allowed signs in a more visible location due to the impact on the listed building.
15. As Mrs B felt her concerns were not being taken seriously, she contacted a disability rights campaigner who agreed the signage was inadequate for disabled people. She contacted the operator who, on 25 May 2022, installed a temporary accessible sign to alert disabled people to the terms and conditions of the car park.
16. Mrs B asked the Council how it had taken account of its public sector equality duty (PSED) in approving the planning applications. The Council replied that it had regard to the duty:

‘in that the location and appearance of the signs (notwithstanding the specific content over which the LPA has no control) has regard to customers with protected characteristics and that they have no impact on the level of parking provision available in the car park for those with disability, or access to and availability of these spaces.’

17. Mrs B queried the response asking how the signs had no impact on disabled people when she had received a fine because she couldn’t read the relevant signs. She did not receive a further reply.

Complaint

18. She made a formal complaint. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure. It said that the signs had been fixed to existing lampposts to minimise the impact on the setting of the listed building which was a key consideration in the final decision. In respect of the entrance sign the Council agreed it would be difficult for any visitor to read/use, but particularly someone with a disability, and be protected from passing traffic. But the Council also noted there was another accessible sign next to the pay and display machine in a safe location. It considered this sign was a proportionate response to the need to balance the impact on the listed building with the Council’s PSED.
19. The Council also said that it did not have control over the content of the signs and so did not approve which signs contained what information. The images provided were examples of the type and size of text, but the Council could not stipulate the detail or content of the signs.
20. The Council noted that the operator had installed additional signage as a result of Mrs B’s complaint and this suggested the original signage might have been inadequate.
21. Mrs B pursued her complaint to stage two of the Council’s procedure. The Council responded at the end of November 2022. It upheld the stage one response repeating that the Council approved the position and size of the sign but not the content and any concerns about this should be raised with the car parking trade body. It said its planning department would ensure the consideration of the PSED would be set out clearly in future planning reports. It noted the operator had now added additional signage.
22. Mrs B tried to escalate her complaint to stage three but the Council said it had responded to all her points and there was no more to be gained. It directed her to our office and she complained to us in January 2023.

Analysis

23. I understand how distressing it must have been for Mrs B to receive a parking fine when she had been unable to read the signs to fully understand the terms and conditions of the car park. The information should have been clearly available for all car park users.
24. However, the Council was not responsible for the content of the signs, only the position and size. It was not able to direct which signs should contain which information. It had to balance the need to limit the impact of the signage on the setting of the listed building against its PSED to ensure the signage was accessible to disabled people. On the basis of the position and size of the signage, it accepted that the signs behind the parking bays would be difficult for a disabled person to read, and the entrance sign would be dangerous to read closely. But it was satisfied that there was a sign at the other side of the car park, next to the pay and display machine, at a safe accessible height and position.
25. The fact that this sign did not contain the terms and conditions of the car park was not an issue the Council could control. That was a matter for the operator of the car park to consider. In response to Mrs B’s complaint the operator has now installed additional signage. It is unfortunate that this signage was not in place from the start, but I do not consider this failure was due to fault by the Council: it was not responsible for the content of the signs, and it was satisfied that there was one sign in an accessible position in the car park.
26. I agree it would be helpful for planning reports to specifically refer to the PSED and to explain how it has been considered where relevant.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mrs B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman