Summary: Mr C complains about the County Council’s submissions to the Local Planning Authority as highways consultee for a proposed residential development. Mr C considers the LPA would not have approved the planning application if the Council had provided the correct information and the development will exacerbate the existing parking problems in his road. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the County Council’s submissions to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) as highways consultee for a proposed residential development. Mr C says the Council provided incorrect information that there would be no less on-street parking provision after a previously agreed road improvement scheme was implemented. Mr C also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
2. Mr C considers the LPA would not have approved the planning application if the Council had provided the correct information and the development will exacerbate the existing parking problems in his road. Mr C is also concerned the information will set a precedent for the LPA’s consideration of future applications.

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)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and relevant legislation

8. The LPA granted planning permission for a residential housing development in 2015 subject to conditions and a section 106 legal agreement. Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) are commonly known as s106 agreements and are a mechanism which make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms that would not otherwise be acceptable. The planning permission included a highway improvement scheme along Mr C’s road. The scheme has not been completed.
9. A statutory consultee is a body the LPA must consult if a planning application could affect their interests. Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 lists the consultees for different types of development including where the local highway authority must be consulted. The County Council (‘the Council’) is the local highway authority for the County.
10. The LPA sought comments from the Council as the relevant local highway authority about the above application. The Council provided comments to the LPA and initially recommended refusal on highway grounds. The Council provided an updated response to the LPA following a meeting with the developer’s consultants and the provision of a revised highway improvement plan. The Council advised the application was acceptable in highway terms subject to conditions.
11. For completeness, a complaint now about the Council’s submissions for this earlier planning application would be caught by the restriction outlined at paragraph 6 above.

Key events

12. The LPA granted planning permission for another residential housing development in 2018 subject to conditions.
13. The Council provided comments to the LPA in May 2017 and objected to the application. The Council provided detailed reasons which largely related to access to the development. The Council provided an updated response in February 2018 following discussions with the developer’s consultants. The Council considered the proposal in highway terms now addressed the earlier reasons for objection and the application would be acceptable subject to some further information. The Council provided a further response in April 2018 following the provision of further details from the developer to say the remaining highway concerns had been overcome. The Council noted the proposal sought consent for access only and other highway matters such as internal roads and parking could be secured at the reserved matters stage with off site highway works being secured by legal agreement.
14. The application was due to be considered by the LPA’s Planning Committee in August. The LPA asked the Council in August to attend the meeting.
15. The Council says it will try to attend Planning Committee meetings in person when asked to do so but confirmed it did not have an appropriate officer available to attend on the date of this meeting. The Council advised the LPA accordingly.
16. The statutory requirement is for the local highway authority to provide comments on relevant applications made to the LPA. There is no requirement to attend Planning Committee meetings and it is not fault for the Council not to do so. It was a matter for the LPA to decide if it had enough relevant information to reach a sound and justified decision or to defer consideration of this item if it considered further information was needed.
17. The Council did provide a written response ahead of the Planning Committee meeting to additional queries raised by the LPA following an officers’ pre-Committee briefing for Members of the Committee.
18. Mr C complained to the Council in September 2018 about its advice to the LPA for this application. Mr C referred specifically to the Council’s response to the additional query above received ahead of the Planning Committee meeting.
19. The query had asked if the highway improvement scheme (attached to the 2015 planning permission) would involve double yellow lines along Mr C’s road and the loss of about 30% of the existing parking spaces. The Council had responded to say the scheme was associated with the 2015 planning permission rather than this application but that the scheme was not expected to result in a loss of on-street parking provision as suggested. The Council confirmed the proposed layout provided 65 anytime spaces and 16 off-peak spaces providing a total of 81 spaces against the existing layout which provided 72 anytime spaces. Mr C complained this information was misleading and inaccurate.
20. The Council responded to Mr C’s complaint in October. It explained the basis for the figures used for existing parking spaces and the proposed 81 spaces which would result from implementation of the scheme attached to the 2015 planning permission. The Council explained this scheme was still pending and provided a copy of the most recent scheme drawings relating to parking provision which the figures it was using were based on.
21. Mr C disputed the number of existing spaces which he considered was 98 spaces and provided his own plan. The Council provided a further response at the final stage of its complaint procedure in October and explained it used a measure of 6 metres for each space in line with government guidance which provided 72 spaces.
22. Mr C responded to say they were approaching a consensus although he considered there were 75 existing spaces using the dimensions set out in the guidance rather than 72 but there would only be a total of 65 spaces after implementation which was a reduction of 13%.
23. The Council responded to Mr C in November but did not directly address Mr C’s claim there would be a 13% reduction. Mr C asked for further clarification. The Council accepted it had not provided a clear reply to his question and apologised. The Council provided a further explanation in December and apologised for the delay which was due to staff absence.
24. Mr C sought further information from the Council in December and January 2019 to understand the before and after figures for parking in his road and what ‘rules’ the Council had applied to reach those figures.
25. The Council has explained that it relied on the information supplied by the applicant of the 2014 scheme and from its own site visits when considering the applicant’s figures for current and planned levels of parking provision and did not hold an annotated plan at the time.
26. The Council met with Mr C in February 2019 to discuss his complaint about the Council’s view there would be more on-street parking after implementation of the highway scheme as he still considered there would be less. The Council says it focussed on the differences between itself and Mr C about the number of spaces after implementation of the 2014 scheme as there was now broad agreement on the number of existing spaces. The Council referred to Mr C’s own plans and an annotated plan it had prepared for the meeting to highlight why there were differences. The Council’s plan illustrated how it had reached the planned level of on-street parking provision as approximately 81 spaces in total. The Council provided Mr C with a copy of this plan in March.
27. Mr C sought a copy of the plan that calculated the existing number of spaces. The Council explained it did not hold such a plan and did not consider it was a good use of its resources to produce one as there was broad agreement about the number of existing spaces.
28. Based on the information provided, I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council in its submissions to the LPA about the 2018 application. The Council provided detailed comments submission which were revised on receipt of further information. The Council also provided a further written response to queries from the LPA ahead of the Planning Committee meeting. The Council has provided cogent reasons for its view there would be no overall reduction in on-street parking provision as a result of the proposed highway improvement scheme. I note this scheme stemmed form the earlier 2014 application (decided in 2015) which does not form part of my investigation and has yet to be completed. I have seen no evidence the Council’s information was materially inaccurate or misleading. It was also a matter for the LPA to decide if it was satisfied with the information received or needed to defer its decision pending further clarification.
29. I am also satisfied the Council responded to Mr C’s subsequent complaint about the matter appropriately including meeting with him. I note during its correspondence the Council apologised for any apparent misunderstanding or lack of clarity in its responses. Even if the Ombudsman were to identify some minor fault here, we would not seek an additional remedy to the apology and additional explanation the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman