Complaint to Ombudsman Plnng Dpt Maladministration- question

[twokcc]

Question is why are LA so desperate to get one remaining condition discharged.?

Some background information
Made a complaint to the LA re Maladministration by planning department going through process to get this heard by Ombudsman. They have very specific requirements to look into this matter which includes a final letter stating that response is- LA final response to the complaint.
Over last 4 months made complaint to planning dpt. planning deportment solicitor and Chief Executives Office(this by M.P). and believed I was following complaints procedure. - but response didn't include the specific final response wording.

Letter to C. E office 4 weeks ago saying referring matter to Ombudsman and subsequently into "LA corporate complaints procedure" Complaints officer contacted me and had a lengthy discussion earlier this week.
One condition still not discharged on from the application is for car park markings( only done on half of the car park).
L.A went into overdrive next day - saying the markings had been done( they have but not to specification re disability bays) and they would be discharging the condition Pointed out not to specification and they sent someone from Transportation dept that afternoon and I was e-mailed to say markings had been approved and the applicant had been advised that the condition would be discharge. With photos ,got this retracted following morning. The store is open and disability bay markings do not have any impact on store operation. Bay nearer to store is marked out correctly - and usually empty..

Asked for status quo to be maintained until referral to LGO is complete - response was that it would not be appropriate to delay discharge of the planning if the conditions are met. There are mechanisms within planning law for the applicants to seek reimbursement of the application cost and i understand that there are also mechanisms for the applicant to effectively notify the Council of discharge of the condition if we fail to deal with the matter.
This was before got discharge retracted. Sounds like B.S.to me in terms of discharging conditions although could be applicable in other circumstances.

I have my own ideas why they attempted to discharge the condition but would welcome any knowledgeable input

Edited by twokcc on Sunday 14th February 08:12

[Tigerjed]

Can't comment on the reasons why they are discharging this one condition, without the full file. But one of the lgo's main criticisms is around unnecessary delay. So once they heard lgo is involved they will want to get it done and show the lgo they have done so, that way they won't be ordered to pay time and trouble payment. The lgo's decision will also be final, so unfortunately I think they might be using it as a way to get rid of you and your complaint. The lgo very rarely upholds any sort of planning complaint. So you may find that once you get the final decision the LA will just stop responding stating that the matter is closed.


Edit- in short you have made a rod for own back l, it is in the complaints procedure now, you have said your part the la has said theirs, it's now for the lgo to make a decision (powers of a high court). You just have to wait.

Edited by Tigerjed on Sunday 14th February 09:31

[Alucidnation]

twokcc said:

Question is why are LA so desperate to get one remaining condition discharged.?

Some background information
Made a complaint to the LA re Maladministration by planning department going through process to get this heard by Ombudsman. They have very specific requirements to look into this matter which includes a final letter stating that response is- LA final response to the complaint.
Over last 4 months made complaint to planning dpt. planning deportment solicitor and Chief Executives Office(this by M.P). and believed I was following complaints procedure. - but response didn't include the specific final response wording.

Letter to C. E office 4 weeks ago saying referring matter to Ombudsman and subsequently into "LA corporate complaints procedure" Complaints officer contacted me and had a lengthy discussion earlier this week.
One condition still not discharged on from the application is for car park markings( only done on half of the car park).
L.A went into overdrive next day - saying the markings had been done( they have but not to specification re disability bays) and they would be discharging the condition Pointed out not to specification and they sent someone from Transportation dept that afternoon and I was e-mailed to say markings had been approved and the applicant had been advised that the condition would be discharge. With photos ,got this retracted following morning. The store is open and disability bay markings do not have any impact on store operation. Bay nearer to store is marked out correctly - and usually empty..

Asked for status quo to be maintained until referral to LGO is complete - response was that it would not be appropriate to delay discharge of the planning if the conditions are met. There are mechanisms within planning law for the applicants to seek reimbursement of the application cost and i understand that there are also mechanisms for the applicant to effectively notify the Council of discharge of the condition if we fail to deal with the matter.
This was before got discharge retracted. Sounds like B.S.to me in terms of discharging conditions although could be applicable in other circumstances.

I have my own ideas why they attempted to discharge the condition but would welcome any knowledgeable input

Edited by twokcc on Sunday 14th February 08:12

Even from your other thread, I still can't work out what the complaint is?

[Equus]

Is it a precedent condition?

[twokcc]

Equus said:

Is it a precedent condition?

If by precedent condition you mean one that was required to be completed before the store opened. Yes it was and stated as such in Planning Inspectors decision notice

Planning dept advised more than a week before store opening date, that condition had not been complied with. Got an e-mail late on night before opening next morning from LA detailing why they opening the store without the condition being complied with.
Does that make a difference?

[rfsteel]

I took a complaint recently to the LGO about the way my local county council were dealing with the maintenance of the local footpaths.

After raising complaints with the County Council and Councilors after 6 months of being fobbed off I final took my complaint to the LGO to hopefully get a resolution, imagine my dismay when they responded to my complaint with "my view is we should not investigate his complaint about the way the Council dealt with his complaints about footpaths near his home. This is because it would not be unreasonable to expect him to go to court if the matter remains unresolved."

I though the whole point of a Complaints Procedure is that you didn't need to end up in court ?

[twokcc]

Alucidnation said:

Even from your other thread, I still can't work out what the complaint is?

Its a public forum so cautious about how much information I reveal. Since last post information come to light from something thats in public domain that appear ro show that appellant misrepresented situation and local authority asked to comment on this and giving an implausible answer and raise further questions which they don't answer.

( Did double post to Equus deleted it and previous to this deleted as well)

[Equus]

twokcc said:

If by precedent condition you mean one that was required to be completed before the store opened.

Yes - precedent as in required prior to some other event.

twokcc said:

Does that make a difference?

Hell yes.

Obviously, it means that it would be unlawful for the store to open until that condition is discharged, and from your original post, it seems that the ball is in your court: you need to ensure that the work has been done to a standard that the LPA is satisfied complies with the condition, before they can discharge it.

You haven't, so far as I can tell, told us the grounds for your maladministration complaint, so I can't tell you why they might be so keen to get this condition discharged, but you should be equally keen it you're actually wanting to be able to bring the development into use without incurring enforcement action against yourself.

Edited by Equus on Sunday 14th February 10:02

[Equus]

twokcc said:

Its a public forum so cautious about how much information I reveal.

Well, without it, we're playing a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, and I'm afraid I don't have time to be playing games at the moment.

[anonymous-user]

Will you end up needing to JR the LA? If you do, what would you hope to achieve, if successful?

[Tigerjed]

rfsteel said:

I took a complaint recently to the LGO about the way my local county council were dealing with the maintenance of the local footpaths.

After raising complaints with the County Council and Councilors after 6 months of being fobbed off I final took my complaint to the LGO to hopefully get a resolution, imagine my dismay when they responded to my complaint with "my view is we should not investigate his complaint about the way the Council dealt with his complaints about footpaths near his home. This is because it would not be unreasonable to expect him to go to court if the matter remains unresolved."

I though the whole point of a Complaints Procedure is that you didn't need to end up in court ?

Unfortunately the whole system is a bit broken lots of vexatious persons who know what to say to get to front of the queue etc means less time for investigations into other issues. It doesn't help that ombudsmen seem to be portrayed in various consumer advice programs and online as being there to fight for peoples rights always favouring the complainant etc rather than their role of being objective oversight and investigation.

[twokcc]

Equus said:

Hell yes.

Obviously, it means that it would be unlawful for the store to open until that condition is discharged, and from your original post, it seems that the ball is in your court: you need to ensure that the work has been done to a standard that the LPA is satisfied complies with the condition, before they can discharge it.

You haven't, so far as I can tell, told us the grounds for your maladministration complaint, so I can't tell you why they might be so keen to get this condition discharged, but you should be equally keen it you're actually wanting to be able to bring the development into use without incurring enforcement action against yourself.

Edited by Equus on Sunday 14th February 10:02

Yes that's my point the store was allowed to open without the condition being discharged.. Staggered by this, LA sent me a letter explaining why the store had been allowed to open(mainly but not only relating to pandemic regulations and assurances from store project manager that they would be done) this forms part of my maladministration complaint
Bringing the development into use nothing to do with me , LA already allowed it to come into use Car park markings done bur disability bays not marked out to specification .LA were aware that this had not been rectified but on basis of Transport team assurances claimed that it was ok and would discharge condition. Photos sent to prove disability bays not marked out correctly.

[twokcc]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Will you end up needing to JR the LA? If you do, what would you hope to achieve, if successful?

No would not but time barred anyway, wasn't until got information from land registry that realised that information presented to Planning Inspector was incorrect.

[Equus]

twokcc said:

...but why does local authority want to get it done and discharged in such haste?

I've already answered that: probably because you're causing a bloody nuisance of yourself, and they want to get you off their back.

twokcc said:

Just as there is legislation about a planning application not being valid and cannot be determined if relevant ownership have not been completed (for example) does something similar exist regarding the development being completed/legal only once all the conditions have been discharged?
Does then then leave LA /development exposed in anyway?

I've already answered that, too: No, there is no legislation requiring completion of a commenced application within a certain period (LPA's have some powers to try to force completion of development, in exceptional circumstances, if they believe that there is a pressing need to do so, but they're incredibly weak and as a result are almost never used), and as I've stated twice now, above, it is a matter for the LPA's discretion whether they choose to pursue enforcement action where a breach of Planning (be it non-compliance with a condition or anything else) has occurred.

I will repeat what I have already written. Please read it slowly and carefully:

There is no maladministration. Stop vexatiously wasting yours and others time.

Edited by Equus on Sunday 14th February 11:58

[twokcc]

Equus said:

Well, without it, we're playing a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, and I'm afraid I don't have time to be playing games at the moment.

Attempted to keep my post to one relevant point LA been less than open or transparent throughout the complaint and now would seem to be over zealous in trying to get this condition discharged. Lots of similar actions during the whole process so maladministration complaint covers five or six specific actions they have taken
Can send a summary sent to complaint officer which details all actions and specific details of complaint for each of them.
Ultimately if get complaint to Ombudsman (which LA making very difficult) report will be in public domain.but no experience of how far I can go.at this stage.

[anonymous-user]

What is it you want to achieve by your complaint?

[CoolHands]

So you’re complaining that some disability spaces aren’t marked correctly? Streuth!

[twokcc]

Equus said:

OK. Now, we're getting somewhere.

If you'd told us that at the outset,

Edited by Equus on Sunday 14th February 10:44

It does say in my post

The store is open.

[twokcc]

CoolHands said:

So you’re complaining that some disability spaces aren’t marked correctly? Streuth!

No it just happens that is the condition that has not been complied with.

[Equus]

twokcc said:

LA been less than open or transparent throughout the complaint.

That will because they are very well attuned to vexatious busybodies - they deal with multiple examples of them daily.

twokcc said:

... and now would seem to be over zealous in trying to get this condition discharged

They've probably reached a point of exasperation where the Development Control Manager has said to the Case Officer 'Oh, for fks sake get this sorted, so we can get this tt off our backs...'.

I've just discovered your post from December

I don't tend to hang around in the SP&L forum much, but had you taken the advice given then and asked on here, I would have given you a very clear and straightforward answer:

You're not talking about 'over-ruling' the Planning Condition (though, yes, the LPA has the power to vary or remove the condition upon the applicant's request, too), you're talking about whether they have discretion in if or how to enforce it.

The answer (as above) is that categorically, YES, they do.