Summary
Ms C complained about the council’s decision to agree to three retrospective planning applications by her neighbour. She said that in deciding the application the council did not take her circumstances into account and failed to take account of their own policies and procedures. Ms C was concerned that the council did not consider the applications together for their cumulative effect which she felt showed that her neighbour’s property was being developed as a business. She said that concerns about the effect of contaminated water and drainage were not dealt with. Ms C also felt that reports put to the council committee were flawed. After the council granted the applications Ms C was also unhappy that she received no updates about monitoring of the site.
To assist us, we obtained advice from one of our professional planning advisers. On the basis of the advice received we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We concluded that the council appropriately determined each application on its merits. We noted that when considering the third application they did refer to the previous two and that the drainage policy referred to was more a matter for building control rather than the planning process. We found that the access issues had been considered and that an error relating to Network Rail’s view of the proposals was not critical. The council also granted the applications provided the developer meets certain conditions. This is to ensure that the property remains in private use and is not used for business. The council said they would monitor the site. They confirmed to us that there has been no evidence of unauthorised activity noted nor have they received allegations of any breach of consent since the application was granted. Ms C had not asked them to keep her up to date with these activities and so we did not uphold the complaint that they should have done so.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201002777 as a PDF (16.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018