Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council’s refusal of her application for a vehicle crossover which caused her unnecessary stress and uncertainty during her development. The Ombudsman has found fault in the Council’s planning consultation process but considers the agreed actions of an apology, small payment and review of its consultation procedure are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains the Council has wrongly refused her application for a vehicle crossover despite granting her planning permission for her associated extension and it meeting the published criteria. Mrs C also says the Council has not provided reasons for its refusal or why it has allowed another crossover nearby and delayed in responding to her complaint.
2. Mrs C says because of the Council’s fault, she has suffered unnecessary stress and uncertainty during the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I read the papers provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mrs C. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council has provided a copy of its Vehicle Crossover Policy and Application Guidance dated May 2018. This states that planning permission may be required in certain circumstances and that this must be obtained before making an application for a crossover to the Council’s Highways team.
8. Mrs C applied to the Council in July 2017 for planning permission for an extension and vehicle crossover.
9. The Council’s Highways team were consulted on the planning application in August with a plan dated June 2017 that showed the parking at the property would not be affected and there would be four off street parking spaces to the rear of the property’s garden. The plan showed the existing crossover next to the existing garage at the rear of the garden. There was no new crossover indicated.
10. Mrs C subsequently submitted revised plans on 23 August to the Council. The Council did not seek further comments from its Highways team.
11. The Highways team responded on 7 September 2017 to say it had no objections to the proposals as “This application does not materially affect the existing parking and the applicant has also indicated that there will be 4 off street parking spaces. Therefore there are no objections.” This comment refers to the details as set out on the June plan.
12. The Council approved the planning application in September. The decision notice refers specifically to a named plan received on 23 August 2017. This drawing shows a new access at the front of the property in addition to the existing crossover at the rear of the property’s garden. There is no evidence this plan was provided to the Council’s Highways team for comment.
13. Mrs C applied to the Council for the vehicle crossing in June 2018 and provided details of the above planning permission.
14. The Council inspected the site in July. The Council’s notes from the inspection visit record that the crossing should be refused as it was too close to the radius of the adopted highway and referred to the planning application which had stated car parking would be to the rear of the garden.
15. The Council wrote to Mrs C towards the end of July to confirm it had refused the application for the above reason but does not provide any measurements to support the refusal.
16. Mrs C complained to the Council in October. The Council responded in November to explain the Highways team had not been consulted on the revised planning proposals and they did not meet the Council’s criteria for a crossover.
17. Mrs C escalated her complaint in December. The Council responded in January 2019 to apologise for an error in the way an earlier letter had been addressed and for not providing a full response to the issues raised. The Council reiterated that its Highways team had not seen or commented on the revised proposals and the new crossover still required Highways consent but did not meet the relevant criteria and so could not be granted irrespective of the planning permission.
18. The Council referred to its guidance that generally “no crossover would be granted within 6 metres of the tangent point of a radius on an unclassified road and this distance may be increased on a classified road or a road where the speed limit is more than 30mph.” The Council confirmed Mrs C’s application did not meet that requirement but did not provide a clear explanation as to why this was the case.
19. The Council also noted that planning permission was no guarantee of Highways approval and further consent would be required for works to the highway and this information had been set out on the planning permission decision notice.
20. Mrs C has raised the issue of the Council allowing other similar crossovers at a similar location. I do not consider it a good use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources to investigate this issue further. This is because, even if I were to identify some fault in the Council’s decision(s) to grant consent for other crossovers, the Ombudsman would not ask the Council to repeat the fault by granting consent to Mrs C.

My consideration

21. Based on the information provided, the Council did not reconsult its Highways team on the revised plan which had introduced a new front crossover. I consider this to be fault. However, if the Council had done so it seems most likely that the Highways team may have objected to the new crossover on similar safety grounds giving its proximity to the corner. It is possible such an objection may have affected the planning application. Mrs C has confirmed her new extension is complete and she remains able to access and park at her property.
22. In the circumstances, I do not consider the Council’s fault has caused Mrs C a significant injustice above her time and trouble in making the complaint to try and understand the Council’s decision. I do consider the Council could have provided a clearer explanation about why Mrs C’s crossover application did not meet the criteria set out at paragraph 18 above.

Agreed action

23. The Council has agreed to:
1. write to Mrs C to apologise for the fault identified above and pay her £75 as a token for her time and trouble within one month of my final decision;
2. provide a clear explanation of why Mrs C’s crossover application does not meet the relevant requirement with any necessary measurements within one month of my final decision; and
3. review its planning application consultation procedures within three months of my final decision to ensure the same issue does not reoccur.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed actions above provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman